47 votes

Why I am pursuing a life, professionally and personally, of Christian Virtue

I promised @chocobean that I would talk about my recent turn to Christianity, so here goes.

The short, trite answer is that I’m taking a leap of faith on a few mystical experiences, and because I’ve run out of spiritual options. Everything else I have tried to do with my life has come up short. A lot of this outcome results from a traumatic early childhood formed, perhaps ironically, in part from Christian religious abuse. In some way perhaps I am trying to synthesize and re-narrate that experience. But also, I really want to go to a Church that is fun, fulfilling, challenging, and does progressive good in the world. There just ain’t a lot of those to choose from, so I figure I need to start my own. For a little more detail, read on. You can skip to the last two paragraphs for a little more reasoned “why Christianity here and now,” independent of my experience.

I was born into a fundamentalist family. Lots of rules, hell, purity, that sort of thing. Very traumatic, and I mean clinical trauma. I left the church in high school thanks to drugs and some smart people, but I maintained a kind of love affair (infatuation?) with good preaching. Something deep inside me responds to the gospel message. I cry when I listen to Jesus Christ Superstar, and a passionate preacher with a good heart, and great gospel music. This is likely tied to suffering-religion at its best helps us grieve and carry on, find joy in a broken world.

One time in college, after a psychedelic party, I found myself unable to sleep, a common side effect I experienced from LSD. I turned on the local gospel station, and suddenly was struck with the urge to go to church. This was black folks gospel, and so I wanted to go to a black church. There was one I knew about, and I have no idea how it was in my consciousness. It was called Life Community Church in Durham, NC. I put on my best suit, tied my tie, and with dilated eyes and doughy disposition I set off. I arrived at precisely 10:30, the service time identified on the marquee.

You may be familiar with black folks time, which is often most evident at church. Black folks time is about moving when the spirit moves you. When I arrived, on white folks time, the church was half-full. It met in an old movie theater, the kind with hundreds of seats. I was ushered to a seat, which was basically the next available seat, they were filled sequentially from the front. This was different from other churches I attended, where members generally seat themselves in their customary location, a respectful distance from others.

There was a large, energetic gospel ensemble delivering the real gospel goods. Large choir, lots of electric instruments, percussion. Everybody dressed better than I was. And I did my best to keep up, clapping hands and shouting and grinning. I was all in.

After a while, the pastor came on stage, a 6’8 Nigerian native. He made a few comments, and invited us to pass the peace. In a white church, this takes a couple minutes, and you politely smile and shake the hands of the people around you. At Life Community, however, everybody left their seats and wandered around giving hugs and smiles and lots of time to each other. No idea how long we were at that, but I did notice that space was now standing room only.

Then the preacher was joined by his 5’4 (at most) Guatemalan wife, who greeted us cheerfully before the pastor began his sermon. It was all mostly about leading a decent life, strong families, moderation, godliness, fairly conservative socially. I was riveted to every word, I clapped and shouted and prayed.
When everything was finally over, and I had been repeatedly and warmly welcomed and invited to come back, I finally made it to my car and noted the time: 3:30 p.m.! And I knew then, this was what I wanted to do with my life-bring this kind of joy, and be a channel of this kind of power.

I didn’t have any real religion then, however, wrongly thinking that was some kind of requirement, and so I left the dream on the table. I went on to become a drug addict, get clean, get married, have kids and begin life as a lawyer.

When the kids started to get mobile, their mom and I decided we ought to go to church, that it would be good for the kids morals, provide community, that sort of thing. I was buddhist/atheist/soft new age, not really in on the Jesus thing, but it seemed right. We found a church with a great garden out front and a pride sticker on the door, and headed in. Compared to Life Community Church, the preaching was good, but not as passionate, though the message more closely aligned with my values.

The best part of the experience was Sunday school, however, and I even taught a couple classes, really enjoyed doing the bible study part of it. I started paying more attention and getting more involved. We brought in Nadia Bolz-Weber as guest preacher one Sunday. Nadia is a powerful preacher, and her work in Colorado was very promising for a time. While she was preaching, I had a mystical experience, a feeling of lightness and an urgent awareness that I should be up there doing that same thing. My (now Ex) wife was surprisingly into the idea, and so were the pastors. I went and toured a seminary in pursuit of the call. But at the seminary I was like, there is no way I can spend three years with these people, and I still wasn’t really a believer, so I let the moment pass. It’s one of the few regrets I have in life, following the call then may have led to my marriage having a very different outcome. Alas for life choices.

Come forward a few years, the marriage has dissolved bitterly, I have come out of denial about how awful my childhood was and how dysfunction of a human I had become, and how much my kids suffered as a result. Among my many ongoing efforts to remedy this, I found myself at a spiritual retreat in what is known in some circles (mainly Quaker) as a “Clearness Committee.” It’s a space where someone with some kind of intractable problem becomes the subject of a conclave of caring folks. I was there to figure out career transition. There were some q and a, some breathwork, and in the middle of a silent spot someone asked the shockingly straightforward question, “what do you really want to do?”

The answer in my mind was immediately, “I want to preach.” And almost as immediately, a voice came into mind “you can’t do that,” coupled with a profound fear of saying so out loud. I knew from previous spiritual work this was a sign that I should immediately take the contrary action, and so spoke it out.

Now, this was not a Christian gathering, but as it happened, the person who asked the question was a Christian pastor, and she gave me some names and numbers of people to talk to. As it also happened, she used to work for a guy in my current Church, who, as it further happened, was the past president of a prestigious divinity school. This was my favorite guy in Church, and so I talked to him, and here we are. A lot of yes all in a row.

So, it’s really a gamble on a set of experiences I don’t fully understand about a God I barely believe in. But I knew almost instantly as soon as I arrived in divinity school that I was doing the right thing. I still don’t believe, but I have made a decision to act in faith anyway. From an intellectual point of view, I have a strong impulse to do something, anything, to try and bring some goodness to the world. And since, in my estimation, for better or worse, America is a Christian nation, it seems Church could be an effective vehicle for that. Plus, I really do want to be a preacher.

I was about to end there because it sounded cool, but I want to say a little more about why Christianity might be especially good for my values, and for the West. More than just custom and tradition, I’m discovering that a lot of the way I think about the existence of the world is really Christian in nature. Most intellectuals since the 18th century or so would point to Plato, or more recently, to chaos as the proper way to order a mind. But in practice, most people are espousing a neo-Platonist Christian kind of justice and morality. In a super short sentence, this is that creation and humanity were made for each other. Ten years ago I would have said, and a large part of me still believes, the truth is more a kind of Manifestatum ex Chao of both together, and perhaps there is nothing particularly special about humanity. However, most people, practically at least, seem to recognize that rational ordering exists uniquely in the human mind alongside a more programmatic animal nature. They also seem to believe in the notion of goodness. Many humanists argue that we can be “good without God,” however, as far as I can tell they arguing about a goodness which is derived from Christian scholarship (love your neighbor). Even if I’m wrong on that, and/or they are right about the uselessness of God for good, most people in the way they act suggest an assumption that true compassion flows from the Christian God. As a result, I think the best way to foment good for most people here where I am geographically is within the Christian religious framework.

Finally, I’m partial to the notion of classical (medieval?) professionalism: a professional is one who professes a noble principle, i.e. clergy profess goodness, educators profess truth, military officers, peace, lawyers, justice, physicians, health, and artists, beauty.

157 comments

  1. [73]
    sparksbet
    (edited )
    Link
    A lot of what you wrote here is stuff I can agree with, acknowledge your experience with, or at least understand your perspective on even as I disagree. But there is one part I feel I need to push...

    A lot of what you wrote here is stuff I can agree with, acknowledge your experience with, or at least understand your perspective on even as I disagree. But there is one part I feel I need to push back against:

    most people in the way they act suggest an assumption that true compassion flows from the Christian God

    What exactly does this mean to you? Are you saying that people who do not believe in the Christian God do not demonstrate compassion? Or are you suggesting that non-Christians who demonstrate compassion suggest in some way (I'm not sure how and I'd appreciate if you elaborated) that their compassion comes from the Christian God despite their lack of faith in Him? Either way, this way of looking at non-Christians really rubs me the wrong way and feels, ultimately, pretty disrespectful of them.

    I was raised in an evangelical fundamentalist Christian environment in the US, and I'll admit I have a lot of trauma from being raised that way that informs my feelings reading your post here. It seems from what you write here that this is something we have in common, at least to an extent. I've tried to set those feelings aside where I can while reading this, since I don't think your post comes from the same place of judgment and hate that permeates the environment I grew up in. You've clearly ended up at a different flavor, at least, of Christianity, and I don't want to make it seem like I'm equating your beliefs with those of fundamentalists. I don't want to derail the post by treating you with hostility. If nothing else, it would be extremely hypocritical to do so in a comment that centers around respecting others' religious beliefs if I didn't offer you the same courtesy.

    I understand that your beliefs center the Christian God as the source of virtues like this (because I once believed it myself), but I think statements like these go beyond just expressing that belief and towards a way of looking at non-Christians that feels pretty condescending. It feels like a complete refusal to acknowledge the beliefs of others (and what you write about non-Christian approaches to ethics indicates, to me at least, a very surface-level-at-best understanding of what non-Christians believe and have written about the subject).

    I also think this line of thinking becomes more worrying when you start applying it to whole nations, history, and civilization rather than just individuals, which I see hints of in this post. It's the most seemingly innocent version of a line of thinking about those who are different than you that ends in some really bad places.

    32 votes
    1. [2]
      stu2b50
      Link Parent
      If nothing else it’s very western-centric. What does that imply for the cultures of the East? Is China and Japan and Korea and so forth fundamentally unable to be moral, and have been for the...

      If nothing else it’s very western-centric. What does that imply for the cultures of the East? Is China and Japan and Korea and so forth fundamentally unable to be moral, and have been for the entirety of their history? Or are they all closet Christians?

      18 votes
      1. NoblePath
        Link Parent
        It is, and I am. This is not to say that western thought is universally or objectively superior, just that in my time and place, and my propensities, Christ is the best example of love. I figure...

        western-centric

        It is, and I am. This is not to say that western thought is universally or objectively superior, just that in my time and place, and my propensities, Christ is the best example of love.

        I figure God is like the peak of the mountain, appearing different andd requiring a different approach depending on where one is starting from. From where I am, I see no approach but through Christ.

        6 votes
    2. [70]
      NoblePath
      Link Parent
      My wording there was probably not sufficiently precise, but hey, I'm just finishing my first semester! Let me first be super-clear, I am definitely NOT of the opinion that anyone who has different...

      My wording there was probably not sufficiently precise, but hey, I'm just finishing my first semester!

      Let me first be super-clear, I am definitely NOT of the opinion that anyone who has different beliefs than mine is in any way morally inferior, or somehow worth less as a person. I do believe there are some opinions that are problematic, however. I also do believe there is likely a "truth," however I am unsure how knowable said "truth" might be.

      What I meant to relay was my observation that most of the folks in the progressive sphere have similar ideas on what a "good" person looks like, and those ideas are pretty close in alignment with the Christ, and from my limited view of history, the ideas seem to have originated in the Judeo-Christian line and don't exist elsewhere. I'm speaking here of unconditional, affirmative love for one's neighbor who might be culturally detestable. I'm not saying that humanists (using this term to stand in for all non-relgious, progressive do-gooders) are secretly believers, I'm just saying their ideals are really similar.

      I'm not clear on what you're trying to hint at at that last paragraph. I don't intend to support any kind of state government that sorts people's status based on religious view, indeed I would fight against that. If your fear is something else, please spell it out.

      I also don't think anyone's going to get damned to hell for all eternity. If we are God's creation, we are and act of love, created to love. To miss our purpose is to be in hell, but as it is the purpose for which we were created (and are therefore said to have the image of God), we'll all get there eventually.

      See also @IIIIIIIIII 's comment and my reply.

      6 votes
      1. [2]
        Carrie
        Link Parent
        “And from my limited view of history, the ideas seem to have originated in the Judeo-Christian line and don’t exist elsewhere.” - I find this line very problematic, and seemingly willfully...

        “And from my limited view of history, the ideas seem to have originated in the Judeo-Christian line and don’t exist elsewhere.” - I find this line very problematic, and seemingly willfully ignorant.

        Is it not your duty to study schools of thoughts outside of Judeo Christianity ? Historically, it is one of the most recent schools of religious thought, and thus the ideas are almost inherently borrowed from many other previous cultures.

        I applaud you for finding a purpose and stating it. But it does feel very narrow minded. Even the idea that there is “one single truth, and it is Christian,” is very demeaning to other people.

        I hope you continue to grow and find meaning in your studies.

        15 votes
        1. NoblePath
          Link Parent
          I fear I may have been misunderstood. As I stated elsewhere, my view is that God is atop a mountain and there are many paths there. What I mean by goodness is coming from Christianity is that in...

          I fear I may have been misunderstood. As I stated elsewhere, my view is that God is atop a mountain and there are many paths there.

          What I mean by goodness is coming from Christianity is that in the West, our shared ideas of goodness are mostly informed by Christianity.

          There is also a semantic issue here. "West" is both a geographical concept, as well as a cultural one, in the way I am using it; I do understand, however, that no place is monochromatic.

          What I see, however, from where I sit is that the best way to promote goodness in the world is using Christ.

          4 votes
      2. [3]
        sparksbet
        Link Parent
        The thing I was hinting at in the end of my last comment was a belief that non-Christian cultures are entirely lacking or incapable of expressing virtues like the compassion you describe. Another...

        The thing I was hinting at in the end of my last comment was a belief that non-Christian cultures are entirely lacking or incapable of expressing virtues like the compassion you describe. Another reply to my comment rightly pointed out that this is Western-centric. The belief that certain virtuous beliefs much originate in Christian beliefs implies that non-Christian societies (such as Eastern cultures or traditional African cultures or the native people of the Americas) are morally deficient, or at least were prior to Christian contact, and this very belief has been used to justify colonialism and other atrocities against these people groups.

        I think it's presumptuous to tell even me, someone with an obvious Christian religious background, that my morals and virtues stem solely from Christian thought (fwiw, Jews tend to hate it when Christians use the term "Judeo-Christian," so I'd recommend replacing it in your vocabulary with either just "Christian" or "Abrahamic" when you truly want to be broad) but I think it's downright dangerous when Christian virtue is framed as a trait of "the West," as it seems to in the book recommended by the linked commenter. It's no longer just a religious belief at that point -- it's ethnocentrism.

        For what it's worth, I never got the vibe that you believe in eternal damnation from your post, and I have no problem with you believing truth exists (I also believe truth exists). You're definitely a far cry from the fundamentalists I grew up with in many respects, and I think you have a lot of interesting insights. But I think this belief in the superiority of Western culture due to its Christian foundations is very much what those fundamentalists believed, and it brings me back to being forced to watch videos about the white supremacist Great Replacement theory in history class at my Christian high school. That's why I think that line of thinking is so dangerous.

        9 votes
        1. [2]
          NoblePath
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Thanks for helping me clarify my communication style and approach. I do not think Western thought or ideals, to the extent they are distinct from any others, are inherently superior in any...

          Thanks for helping me clarify my communication style and approach.

          I do not think Western thought or ideals, to the extent they are distinct from any others, are inherently superior in any universal way. What I think is that Western ideals are very much Christian ideals. I further think that in the West, which is both a geographical and a cultural phenomenon, the best way for me to act with goodness is through Christ. I believe this is also probably true for a lot of other people, and I'm here to share that message, but not to coerce.

          Edit: With respect to my Jewish sisters and brothers (and I do love and respect Jews and their culture, I have known a few even in the biblical sense), Christianity began life as a Jewish apocalyptic sect, and Christ was born a Hebrew, went to temple, read Torah, kept kosher, the whole bit. Peter and Paul were both Jewish. Christianity today is still, in my mind, a Jewish religion, even if the orthodox disclaim it.

          4 votes
          1. sparksbet
            Link Parent
            Thank you for taking the time to read and respond! I hope my comments didn't come off as overly hostile -- while I do definitely disagree with you on a lot, I think it takes a lot of grace to...

            Thank you for taking the time to read and respond! I hope my comments didn't come off as overly hostile -- while I do definitely disagree with you on a lot, I think it takes a lot of grace to respond without defensiveness in such a discussion.

            7 votes
      3. [64]
        SteeeveTheSteve
        Link Parent
        Our recent changes have only been small alterations to what is, at its core, a Christian society. The church and it's followers have enforced those morals on society in the west for 2 millennia....

        similar ideas on what a "good" person looks like

        Our recent changes have only been small alterations to what is, at its core, a Christian society. The church and it's followers have enforced those morals on society in the west for 2 millennia. You don't just erase that kind of history simply by no longer being Christian, you'll still be part of the same society. You'll have to introduce new beliefs that conflict with the old before people would abandon the Christian ones and even then it's no guarantee they won't reject the new.

        There's also a number of beliefs that progressives dislike that IMO are not Christian but are spouted by people who claim to be Christians, like hating people for being gay or getting an abortion requiring them to nitpick specific areas to reach such a conclusion (while ignoring that they're breaking dozens of rules themselves). Reminds me of a local church that kicked a homeless man out who was just there to pray. I kind of wish the good churches would speak up more against these other ones.

        3 votes
        1. [63]
          GenuinelyCrooked
          Link Parent
          While Jesus was kind to sinners and didn't preach hatred towards anyone, isn't the Bible generally interpreted to consider being gay to be a sin? So while Christians are wrong to be cruel to them,...

          While Jesus was kind to sinners and didn't preach hatred towards anyone, isn't the Bible generally interpreted to consider being gay to be a sin? So while Christians are wrong to be cruel to them, they wouldn't be wrong (according to their rules) to preach repentance and to believe that gay people are going to hell? That doesn't seem very progressive to me.

          11 votes
          1. [62]
            sparksbet
            Link Parent
            There are two schools of thought among relatively progressive churches when it comes to being gay that I remember from when I dabbled in being a progressive Christian. One of those schools (the...

            There are two schools of thought among relatively progressive churches when it comes to being gay that I remember from when I dabbled in being a progressive Christian. One of those schools (the one I aligned with more) is pure acceptance. Either reinterpret the verses that have been interpreted as saying being gay is a sin (and there absolutely are solid alternative interpretations of those verses), or throw them out.

            The other school of thought, which appeals to me much less, is that being gay isn't a sin but that having gay sex is a sin and iirc that God is calling gay people to be celibate. imo the "progressive" Christians who believe this are lying to themselves about it being much different from what the fundamentalists believe these days. My impression is that most churches that label themselves as bring queer-accepting take the other approach.

            That said, the idea that all the homophobia coming from Christians is somehow divorced from the religion they use as its foundation (which is the sentiment I get from the comment you replied to) is just wrong. Where did "hating gay people" come from in the West if not Christianity -- especially if you're going to credit Christianity with advancing virtues throughout Europe, you can't claim things like homophobia and antisemitism that come from that same Christian hegemony are somehow unrelated to Christianity.

            11 votes
            1. [50]
              GenuinelyCrooked
              Link Parent
              Thank you, this reaponse covers exactly what I was looking for! I've heard this referenced before, but if you know of examples off the top of your head I'd be interested to hear more about them. A...

              Thank you, this reaponse covers exactly what I was looking for!

              Either reinterpret the verses that have been interpreted as saying being gay is a sin (and there absolutely are solid alternative interpretations of those verses), or throw them out.

              I've heard this referenced before, but if you know of examples off the top of your head I'd be interested to hear more about them. A podcast that I was listening to had a religious scholar arguing that the ancient Greek phrase that's been translated to make the passage about homosexuality would be more accurately translated in a way that makes it about pedophilia, but I've only heard it from that one source and it seems rather convenient if it happens to be true.

              Even if "True" Christianity would be completely accepting of gay people and relationships, there's still undeniably quite a few problems with gender roles that keep it from being a fully progressive doctrine, but both facets matter.

              3 votes
              1. [43]
                kfwyre
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                Colby Martin’s Unclobber is a good, accessible book-length read. It’s part memoir, part Bible study, in which a straight pastor grapples with the prevailing notion that the Bible is anti-gay...
                • Exemplary

                Colby Martin’s Unclobber is a good, accessible book-length read. It’s part memoir, part Bible study, in which a straight pastor grapples with the prevailing notion that the Bible is anti-gay because he feels it conflicts with his other Christian values. (Note: I recommend avoiding the audiobook — the style of the narration unfortunately makes the author’s words sound arrogant, when I think the author is genuinely the opposite.)

                More succinctly speaking, the general arguments that make the most sense to me are:

                One: There has been a lot very sloppy discourse and modern identities projected onto passages — a lot of selectivity and ignoring context. Like, I used to have discussions with people about the story of Sodom, in which the “hero” of the story, Lot, offers his daughters up to be raped by the crowd (Genesis 19:4-8). Not only is this heinous (but never commented on by people using the story of Sodom against gays), but it also doesn’t even make sense that Lot would offer his daughters to the crowd if they were gay men (as we understand them to be today).

                I think because “sodomy” is a modern term, it has colored how people interpret that entire story. Same goes for translations that say “homosexual.” That’s also a modern identity that’s played the game of translation telephone through the ages.

                There’s also the big debate over whether Old Testament law still applies post-Jesus, or whether he superseded that law with his sacrifice. Homosexuality is still mentioned negatively in the New Testament, but it’s less prominent and not nearly as colorful as the stuff in the Old Testament. Leviticus 20:13 says we shall be put to death and is a favorite passage of anti-gay agitators. Of course, three verses earlier it says the same thing for adulterers, but you never hear about whole swaths of a religion rallying against them (despite adultery being more common than homosexuality: an estimated 21 percent versus 7 percent). Another example of modern Bible-based criticism being misleadingly selective rather than honest.

                Furthermore, the Bible has seemingly no concept of female homosexuality, probably because of the way sexuality was viewed at the time (as something a man, or active partner, did to a woman, or passive partner). To say that homosexuality is a sin is a broad mischaracterization on its own simply because the Bible addresses only male homosexuality specifically.

                Side note: the Bible is MUCH more pro-hetero than it is anti-gay, which is a whole separate line of argument on this topic that has a lot more weight behind it given how much the Bible talks about marriage.

                Two: Even if we ignore all of the above and assume that homosexuality is genuinely sinful, it’s, at the very least, not a huge focus. It is mentioned very few times, and often not on its own but in a list of other sins. The aforementioned adultery example is a good one, as well as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Jesus himself never made any mention of homosexuality, and in the New Testament the only person to speak at all of it is Paul.

                (Male) Homosexuality gets outsize attention not because of what the Bible says about it but because of pre-existing prejudices that people try to retrofit the Bible into. We can see a clear example of this with the recent decline in religious anti-gay rhetoric and rise in religious anti-trans rhetoric. The Bible says even less about being trans than it does being gay, but the focus of the animus of some shifted quite fluidly from one to the other. If this were based in genuine Biblical scholarship and belief, we would have seen something quite different.

                After all, the whole point of Jesus’s sacrifice was forgiveness, because sin is inevitable and we are unable to escape it ourselves. All of us. Every single one.

                Back when I was Christian, I admired the other Christians I knew who were actively trying to live a good life. Sin was a constant struggle for them, and this made them empathetic to others’ struggles as well. Instead of looking at others in judgment, they understood the weight of sin in their own lives, could see it in others, and that was a source of commiseration. Escaping it was a communal goal. These were the Christians who, after I came out, honored my “struggle” rather than condemning me outright.

                Unfortunately, there were many who did the latter as well. As a Christian I shared many of my sins with others prior to coming out, and those were met with compassion and understanding. After coming out, however, the temperature of my interactions changed. Despite homosexuality being just another type of sin in the broad variety out there, it became SO much more.

                To face that hatred head-on was one thing, but it was especially eye opening because, at the time I came out, I had never actually done anything gay. I was still celibate — I’d never so much as held hands with another guy. Up to that point homosexuality existed for me only as an unshakeable feeling in my head. So to have Christians turn on a dime and treat me as if I had committed the worst, most unforgivable sin merely because of an idea, not an action, was extremely jarring. It helped highlight to me that what I was facing wasn’t a Bible-based worldview, but a world-based one that was using the Bible as a cover story.


                Now, there’s a distortion of my own here that I feel obligated to speak to. A negative response like this was not all nor even most of the Christians I knew. Furthermore, a lot of them remained compassionate, loving, caring. I want to honor that, because I think the vocally hateful pull focus in such a way that they cast the entirety of Christianity in a certain light, and that’s simply not accurate. It’s the same prejudice that gets used against us gays when people characterize all of us only by the worst of us.

                There are two a great books I love on this topic: Still Time to Care by Greg Johnson and Walking the Bridgeless Canyon by Kathy Baldock.

                Greg Johnson is a gay pastor who details his time in the ex-gay movement and shares how the wider Christian expectations of a “saved” testimony coerced him and many others to lie about their identities. It is not an anvilicious book; Johnson isn’t writing it to grind an axe. He is instead reflective, thoughtful, and earnest the whole way through.

                Kathy Baldock, meanwhile, is a straight writer who focuses on the harms done to gay people in the name of the Church. She focuses on accountability, compassion, and restoration.

                Both are excellent reads, and I highly recommend them to anyone interested in the topic. And if you check the reviews for either book, you will see many positive reviews from Christians themselves not just people like me who were pushed out of the church and see their books as vindication.

                There are a lot of loving, compassionate Christians out there. It is the genuine centerpole of their beliefs!

                Unfortunately compassion speaks fundamentally more quietly than hate, so we see a lot less of them (especially in modern media) unless we deliberately look for them.

                13 votes
                1. [42]
                  GenuinelyCrooked
                  Link Parent
                  I really appreciate you writing this all out for me. It answers some questions and helped me clarofy some things that I've been struggling with about the topic. Do those books have that same...

                  I really appreciate you writing this all out for me. It answers some questions and helped me clarofy some things that I've been struggling with about the topic.

                  Do those books have that same framework, the assumption that God is good? If not, I'll definitely seek them out. It sounds like the latter might not?

                  To get a bit personal for a moment, I've been having a lot of anxiety about the idea of the Christian god being real. Not a crisis of non-faith or anything - my lack of belief is firm - but the same as a person who doesn't believe in ghosts may still feel fear alone in a dark, purportedly haunted house, I find myself fearing God. I've had a few conversations with good, kind believers who have a faith that does its best to exclude bigotry in their interpretation of the Bible, but it never really helped, and I had trouble articulating way, or figuring out how to frame my questions so that they didn't sound like an attack. Your comment made me realize that my issue is that believers, especially compassionate ones, believe at their core that God is good and kind, that God is love. All of their answers presuppose this, but that is logically at odds with my concern. I am afraid (viscerally, not intellectually) that God is real, but that he is not what I would consider good. That he is cruel and vindictive. You can't answer the question "is he good?" With "yes, because he is good." I think that's why I'm having such trouble getting solace from believers, they end up giving me evidence that would only work if I was already convinced.

                  That's all fairly off-topic to the larger thread, but I appreciated your thoughtful reply and felt you deserved something with as much effort, if not as much use. Thanks again.

                  6 votes
                  1. [12]
                    stu2b50
                    Link Parent
                    Honestly, the more you study Christianity through a scholarly, critical lens, the more obvious it's all bullshit. I think a good exercise is to actually just read the Old Testament - like, holy...

                    Honestly, the more you study Christianity through a scholarly, critical lens, the more obvious it's all bullshit. I think a good exercise is to actually just read the Old Testament - like, holy hell, this is so obviously the warrior guardian deity based of off Ba'al for a specific tribe in the ancient middle east. You can hardly find a construct less omnipotent, less a representation of "all good-ness" than the god of the Old Testament.

                    Compare it to other deities, especially deities of the "Sky-Father" archetype in the near-east, and it's so obvious that this one ain't special in any way.

                    Reading about early Christiandom is another good exercise. The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Paine is an academic, scholarly work about recent discoveries on early Christianity. And if nothing else, wow, the apostles sure are power-grubbing dicks. In fact, it's really sounds like they made the "revival" of Jesus up to consolidate power amongst the believers after his execution.

                    How convenient that only THEY met the spirit of Jesus, and they can't even agree on one account without contradicting themselves.

                    And then they spent the next decades brutally suppressing alternative, now esoteric, branches of Christianity. Certainly makes the current branches, all descended from their formal, hierarchical church, seem like just an exercise in consolidating power, not divine right.

                    11 votes
                    1. [10]
                      GenuinelyCrooked
                      Link Parent
                      That's the thing, I also believe that it's all bullshit! I'm a pretty firm atheist. I only believe in the possibility of the Christian God in a Wonko the Sane "who am I to trust my own perception...

                      That's the thing, I also believe that it's all bullshit! I'm a pretty firm atheist. I only believe in the possibility of the Christian God in a Wonko the Sane "who am I to trust my own perception of the universe? Maybe I'm a hallucinating brain in a jar" kind of way. I do find reminders that he's not real to be more comforting than claims that he's good, not least because it seems people who take that route "understand the assignment" better.

                      Is Elaine Paine a non-believer?

                      3 votes
                      1. [7]
                        DefinitelyNotAFae
                        Link Parent
                        It's Elane Pagels, I assume autocorrect caught the name. A quick look shows she's a historian and left her evangelical church at some relatively young age. I'm sure she's done interviews and she...

                        It's Elane Pagels, I assume autocorrect caught the name. A quick look shows she's a historian and left her evangelical church at some relatively young age. I'm sure she's done interviews and she wrote a book about her personal perspectives but scanning through her work I'd expect it to be scholarly and worth reading regardless of where she landed on her personal beliefs.

                        6 votes
                        1. [2]
                          ShamedSalmon
                          Link Parent
                          Elane Pagels is excellent! She is one of the leading experts on Valetinian Christian exegesis and her insights into the Apostle Paul as one of the (probably unwitting) fathers of Christian...

                          Elane Pagels is excellent! She is one of the leading experts on Valetinian Christian exegesis and her insights into the Apostle Paul as one of the (probably unwitting) fathers of Christian Gnosticism have been vitally important to scholarly studies of early Christianity. I can't say anything to her personal beliefs, but her work is well researched and cited.

                          2 votes
                          1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                            Link Parent
                            Yeah I saw she wrote a book on her personal faith, but having not read it I can't speak to it. Reviewing her work, she seems quite accomplished! Thanks for the confirmation

                            Yeah I saw she wrote a book on her personal faith, but having not read it I can't speak to it. Reviewing her work, she seems quite accomplished! Thanks for the confirmation

                            2 votes
                        2. [4]
                          GenuinelyCrooked
                          Link Parent
                          Thank you!

                          Thank you!

                          1 vote
                          1. [3]
                            DefinitelyNotAFae
                            Link Parent
                            No worries, I do think it's worth talking and working through all the anxiety stuff before digging into this though, like you mentioned! Figuring out what you believe to be true about the nature...

                            No worries, I do think it's worth talking and working through all the anxiety stuff before digging into this though, like you mentioned!
                            Figuring out what you believe to be true about the nature of the universe and our place in it is a lifelong thing, and starting without handling your mental health is probably going to exacerbate things for you.

                            1 vote
                            1. [2]
                              GenuinelyCrooked
                              Link Parent
                              I don't think there's any chance of me actually becoming a believer, short of divine revelation. I guess I'm sort of studying Lovecraft and looking for some indication that Chthulu is actually a...

                              I don't think there's any chance of me actually becoming a believer, short of divine revelation. I guess I'm sort of studying Lovecraft and looking for some indication that Chthulu is actually a nice guy, which is silly. I definitely believe in Lexapro, though!

                              1 vote
                              1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                                (edited )
                                Link Parent
                                Oh I didn't really mean from that angle, just that existential crises are more long term and recurring, regardless of where you land faithwise. Idk, given the sort of people Lovecraft wrote about...

                                Oh I didn't really mean from that angle, just that existential crises are more long term and recurring, regardless of where you land faithwise.

                                Idk, given the sort of people Lovecraft wrote about (and was himself), perhaps there's kindness in being stepped on like an anthill

                                1 vote
                      2. [2]
                        stu2b50
                        Link Parent
                        I think reading putting on a critical, historian lens and just reading the old testament for yourself is a good exercise for that reason. I really doubt anyone with a modern understanding, and...

                        I think reading putting on a critical, historian lens and just reading the old testament for yourself is a good exercise for that reason. I really doubt anyone with a modern understanding, and modern knowledge of ancient religions, could read the old testament in a vacuum and think of it any other way than they would reading about Zeus.

                        When it's not carefully interpreted by a priest, who is quite literally trained to twist the words of this two millenia old book until it no longer seems insane, it's pretty... insane.

                        And being able to come to that conclusion without anyone pushing that view is a powerful indication that you're not wrong, it is bullshit. What could be more ironic than becoming a non-believer by reading Christianity's own holiest book?

                        Is Elaine Paine a non-believer?

                        I'm not sure, but the work is very much through a historical lens. I don't think you should fear much bias there. If anything, it makes Christianity look pretty bad, although I also don't think that's bias - it's just that objective history naturally makes Christianity look bad.

                        3 votes
                    2. NoblePath
                      Link Parent
                      I'm having a very different experience. Studying it scholarly, I mean. I'm engaging with believers, from a point of view of skepticism but faithful to experience. I'm finding that I'm gaining a...

                      I'm having a very different experience. Studying it scholarly, I mean. I'm engaging with believers, from a point of view of skepticism but faithful to experience. I'm finding that I'm gaining a much deeper understanding not just of Christianity, but also of humanity.

                      FWIW Elaine Pagels calls herself a Christian and teaches at Princeton Theological Seminiary iirc.

                      It is sad how much of the later parts of ancient Christianity gave way to political expediency (Constantine declared it the official religion in 325 or so?). But as I've said elsewhere, Christianity was not here to eradicate humanity, but but to move it toward virtuous congruence.

                      1 vote
                  2. [3]
                    kfwyre
                    (edited )
                    Link Parent
                    Thank you for your kind words! I’m happy to share. All three books are written from a Christian perspective, so all three definitely are operating under the framework of a good God. The churches I...

                    Thank you for your kind words! I’m happy to share.

                    All three books are written from a Christian perspective, so all three definitely are operating under the framework of a good God.

                    The churches I grew up in were modern Protestant churches that framed a relationship with God as very individualized and personalized. He was a father, a friend, a bro. He was framed as holy and powerful, sure, but He was mostly anthropomorphized to be “one of us.” We were created in His image, right?

                    We also made edgy high school jokes about God’s temperament. We talked about “Old Testament God” and his cruelty and wrath. He tests Abraham’s faith by asking him to sacrifice his own son. He turns Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt because she looked back at the destruction of her home. He flooded the entire world.

                    I later visited one of my friend’s churches, which was an Eastern Orthodox church. Their framing for God was completely different. Instead of Him being sort of one lateral step away from us humans, they instead framed him as huge, gigantic, unknowable, omnipotent. We, as humans, were infinitesimally small when standing underneath His infinite glory.

                    We spent a large portion of the service reciting tones, simply repeating the phrase “Lord, have mercy.”

                    This, to me, felt like a better way of relating to God. The Protestant way I grew up with always felt a bit arrogant. Like we were bringing ourselves up too high, and not acknowledging the full size and gravity of an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful God.

                    At my friend’s church, they seemed to have it right. We were but tiny little ants underneath the Lord’s magnifying glass, begging Him for mercy, knowing that we didn’t deserve it, and hoping that He would offer it to us anyway. They had a profound and deeply rooted respect (and fear) for God’s almighty power.

                    I say this not to give you an answer as to whether or not God is “good” because I think the answer for that has to come from within the framework of Christianity. From within that framework I think He is, but I also think that the way in which He is “good” doesn’t fit with what a modern, everyday person outside of the church would consider “good.” Also, I’m no longer in that framework myself so it’s really not my call to make.

                    I say all of this to affirm that I actually get what you’re feeling right now, quite specifically. Even though I no longer believe in God, I can’t shake the sense — the fear — that, if I’m wrong, then I am actively choosing to anger an all-powerful being the size of the cosmos itself.

                    Lord? Have mercy. Please.

                    6 votes
                    1. [2]
                      chocobean
                      Link Parent
                      (on Goodness of God. If I may interject on your conversation with /u/GenuinelyCrooked) I don't know this empirically, but I feel this way when I observe my interactions with the world. I don't...

                      (on Goodness of God. If I may interject on your conversation with /u/GenuinelyCrooked)

                      I don't know this empirically, but I feel this way when I observe my interactions with the world. I don't know how I can know to be sure, but I hope so. A lot of the times, Lord have mercy is the only expression that makes any sense to express. If we are really made in the Christian God's image, then I hope that this aspect of my humanity is truly a reflection of what God is like. I hope that yes we are very small, **and** that we are loved *because* we're small (and hopefully cute)

                      I have a little flock of geese. They're loud, they plortz everywhere, they fight, they're destructive, they've beaten me and bitten me, they're silly and they don't do anything to help out themselves or the home. (Objectively they kind of suck as pets.) But they're mine, and they're adorable and I love them.

                      Frankly, I don't really care when they're being dummies or wrong or dirty or disobedient or destructive too much: they're geese, and they're good because they are geese. When I do feel upset by them and intervene, it's when they're hurting themselves or each other, when I need to usher them somewhere they don't want to go, or when I'm inspecting them for health. They don't understand why I'm "so mean" to them and they sometimes hit and bite and scratch -- but I don't stay mad at them. Whatever intense feelings I have is because I'm sad about them being hurt and hurting each other.

                      I don't know for sure, but I feel that God is like that for us except way more patient and loving....hopefully He thinks we're cute and silly, and the harshness we experience here is for protection, healing, and preparation towards eternity.

                      The inverse though, the fear that this isn't true, shouldn't be discounted of course. But hopefully the fear exists because we so very much want the love to be real that we'd have our heart of hearts broken if it wasn't true.

                      You mentioned an Orthodox Church.....I grew up with sin being defined as wilful disobedience or a failing to be perfect at best....the Orthodox Church offers a different model: sin is a wound. We are beaten up by an enemy and left injured/dying in a hostile/indifferent world. The Church isn't a penal institution to pass sentence or monitor parole, but rather, a hospital.

                      3 votes
                      1. kfwyre
                        Link Parent
                        You are ALWAYS welcome to interject, chocobean! And I appreciate your perspective here. The mental image of being God’s geese is a lot warmer than my current one, which is a nice counterbalance....

                        You are ALWAYS welcome to interject, chocobean!

                        And I appreciate your perspective here. The mental image of being God’s geese is a lot warmer than my current one, which is a nice counterbalance.

                        The “hospital” metaphor also fits a lot with how I saw my friend’s church. My churches were not like that at all. I don’t have a good metaphor for them to explain the difference, but I can say they definitely didn’t feel like spiritual hospitals.

                        4 votes
                  3. [3]
                    sparksbet
                    Link Parent
                    I don't have any answers that will help you, but I do want to say that I deeply relate to this. One of the first steps I took away from my fundie upbringing was the realization that if what I'd...

                    All of their answers presuppose this, but that is logically at odds with my concern. I am afraid (viscerally, not intellectually) that God is real, but that he is not what I would consider good. That he is cruel and vindictive. You can't answer the question "is he good?" With "yes, because he is good." I think that's why I'm having such trouble getting solace from believers, they end up giving me evidence that would only work if I was already convinced.

                    I don't have any answers that will help you, but I do want to say that I deeply relate to this. One of the first steps I took away from my fundie upbringing was the realization that if what I'd grown up being taught about God was true, He was not something I considered good or wanted to worship. Having this belief before I even stopped believing in eternal damnation was... a lot.

                    Ultimately the only comfort I can offer is that I don't think there's much evidence that the Christian God exists at all, but I know that's probably not the kind of reassurance you're searching for. It's possible you'll find what you're looking for in works of philosophy by Christian philosophers, but that probably means reaching back to pretty old works.

                    4 votes
                    1. [2]
                      GenuinelyCrooked
                      Link Parent
                      I don't really think he exists either. Ultimately it's only a problem when my anxiety is already not well controlled, and the writing I should be seeking is probably a doctor to write a new...

                      I don't really think he exists either. Ultimately it's only a problem when my anxiety is already not well controlled, and the writing I should be seeking is probably a doctor to write a new Lexapro prescription. I do find the subject fascinating, and it feels like understanding it will help me to understand the believers in my life better, which is why I've kept trying to probe it from a philosophical/literary angle. I think kfwyre's comment helped me realize that isn't healthy for me right now and I should be focusing on contolling my anxiety more generally first, and either contemplating the possibility of a good God later or not at all.

                      3 votes
                      1. sparksbet
                        Link Parent
                        Best of luck with managing your anxiety -- I completely empathize.

                        Best of luck with managing your anxiety -- I completely empathize.

                        3 votes
                  4. [23]
                    NoblePath
                    Link Parent
                    Do you have a religious background? What you are describing sounds like it might be trauma related (I am not a medical provider). I have spent many nights of my life in terror of a god-strike, so...

                    Do you have a religious background? What you are describing sounds like it might be trauma related (I am not a medical provider).

                    I have spent many nights of my life in terror of a god-strike, so I know the pain. It still comes up, it's deeply embedded in my psyche.

                    For me it is the result of what I would consider to be the highest order crimes-those that take advantage of innocent vulnerability. I believe we are are hardwired for spiritual experience. Please distinguish spiritual from supernatural here, and despite aiming to be a preacher, my belief in a supernatural god is pretty low. I do, however, have a firm faith. All that's a separate conversation, but I want you to have some idea where I'm coming from. So, yes on spiritual part of our psyche, supernatural not required.

                    Fundamentalism cruelly exploits this in its children at a time when they are having a spiritual yearning, but no ability to think about it or take any kind of action. Fundamentalism pours in this fear-based bullshit, ties the spiritual part to the amygdala which it further mal-forms, and all of sudden people are fear-motivated to do all kinds of awful things.

                    My hope is that you can find a way to start to rearrange your psyche around this issue, replace that fear based thing with a loving thing (again, no supernatural required). I do firmly believe that there is no such boogey-man God judging and damaning you.

                    2 votes
                    1. [22]
                      GenuinelyCrooked
                      (edited )
                      Link Parent
                      I was raised in a Christian household, yes, and it's definitely traum related. But my fear didn't come from anything anyone told me. I was told about hell, but I was also told that since I've been...

                      I was raised in a Christian household, yes, and it's definitely traum related. But my fear didn't come from anything anyone told me. I was told about hell, but I was also told that since I've been baptized I'm not going there. I wasn't told about the things that actually scare by any Christian adults in my life. I learned about them from reading the Bible. V

                      Edit: To clarify, I actually only started having anxiety on the subject last year, when my anxiety had been running ragged on other things. I'm 32 and have been an atheist since I was a teenager. The religious trauma that I have is more of an issue of family members being cruel and abusive in the name of God, than of them claiming God would ever be cruel to me. It had certainly informed the anxiety that I'm feeling now, but the Bible is by far more important in it.

                      1 vote
                      1. [21]
                        NoblePath
                        Link Parent
                        If you'd care to, I'd love to help you unpack some of that from a theological point of view. Not with an endpoint of you becoming Christian, but of your having a little more freedom at least from...

                        If you'd care to, I'd love to help you unpack some of that from a theological point of view. Not with an endpoint of you becoming Christian, but of your having a little more freedom at least from a rational point of view about what you read. It will be up to you and your therapists and friends to translate that into an emotional change.

                        3 votes
                        1. [20]
                          GenuinelyCrooked
                          Link Parent
                          I'm not against that, but I'm not sure what it would look like.

                          I'm not against that, but I'm not sure what it would look like.

                          1. [19]
                            NoblePath
                            Link Parent
                            Well, why don’t we start with like the fourth most scariest passage you’ve read. Lay the chapter and verse, and maybe share a little about what it means to you and why it feels so scary?

                            Well, why don’t we start with like the fourth most scariest passage you’ve read. Lay the chapter and verse, and maybe share a little about what it means to you and why it feels so scary?

                            1. [18]
                              GenuinelyCrooked
                              Link Parent
                              Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is pretty scary. God is just like "yeah, you gotta marry your rapist forever." I've heard the argument that back then it was the best deal she would probably get as a...

                              Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is pretty scary. God is just like "yeah, you gotta marry your rapist forever." I've heard the argument that back then it was the best deal she would probably get as a "non-virgin", but God could have also comanded her father to just take care of her, or other men to be willing to marry the "non-virgin" since she's innocent in the whole situation, or he could have just declared that she's actually still a virgin. Instead he made a declaration that any rape victim will tell you is nearly as horrifying as the act itself.

                              I also don't buy "that was in the Old Testament". He "forgave us" in the New Testament, but he didn't ask for our forgiveness or apologize to us. He's still responsible for the things he did in the Old Testament. That was a pretty nasty thing to do.

                              3 votes
                              1. [2]
                                ShamedSalmon
                                (edited )
                                Link Parent
                                In Answer to Job, C.G. Jung posits that the Hebrew god did, in fact, sin against humanity, and thus had to incarnate and kill himself to atone for what he did to the innocent (namely Job). This...

                                In Answer to Job, C.G. Jung posits that the Hebrew god did, in fact, sin against humanity, and thus had to incarnate and kill himself to atone for what he did to the innocent (namely Job).

                                This doesn't help with your passage, per se, and Jung's god is both an aspect of the psyche and a literary device that represents the progress of collective human thought, but I figured that the idea of the sinful god might add some interesting perspective to your comment about a god asking for our forgiveness.

                                As for the passage, Dr.Eve Levavi Feinstein proposes that this law was an early attempt at a minor improvement over the Middle Assyrian Laws that would have been commonplace during the period after the Assyrian Captivity. It is likely that Deuteronomy was written after Hezekiah's monolatric reforms, during the reign of Josiah, around 600 BCE. 2 Kings 22:8 records that the high priest Hilkiah "discovered" the book in the temple library.

                                This doesn't make such treatment of women okay by any means, but it does place the laws themselves in their historic time and place. However, I admit that with my answer not being a Christian one, this may not be the answer you are looking for.

                                1 vote
                                1. GenuinelyCrooked
                                  Link Parent
                                  I love a non-Christian answer! It gets to the healthy part of my interest on the topic, and doesn't bake in any assumptions that God is fundamentally good. I am delighted and edified by your...

                                  I love a non-Christian answer! It gets to the healthy part of my interest on the topic, and doesn't bake in any assumptions that God is fundamentally good. I am delighted and edified by your response. It's interesting that the passage Jung is responding to is the torment of Job (and his family and household who were also innocent) since that's either the first or second scariest passage in the Bible for me. I do feel that in the question "What if God is real, but not Good?" This lands more on the side of "he isn't real", not because it makes him logistically less likely, but because if he is fallible and repentent then he is not the God of the Bible (at least as I understand it). That puts him back in the realm of myth which is fascinating and not scary. That's not who my sisters or my aunts or my mom believe, so there's no "ok I know they aren't right what if they are??" anxiety.

                                  I appreciate the linking of Dr. Feinstein's analysis as well. That's very similar to the explanation that I've received in the past, that the instructions were an improvement on the laws in place at the time. That's a good argument to prove humanity's goodness. We are only able to consider things from the point of view of pur own experience, and trying to make the world better for each other is good even when the world is in such a state that "better" is still quite bad. We humans are also only able to influence each other so much, to expect each other to change so much.

                                  @NoblePath This explanation does not make God any less scary because if he can see into my heart and soul and my wants and needs, he should have always been able to do that with all women. He should have known how damaging something like this would be. He isn't bound in his own understanding by the constraints of time the way that humans are. He also isn't bound to only to ask incremental changes of them. He has asked much more of populations than "your daughter's hymen isn't a 'you break it you buy it' situation". To put the bar this low and subject women to this kind of torment is abominable.

                                  1 vote
                              2. [15]
                                NoblePath
                                Link Parent
                                If I can leave the other explanations and exegesis alone for a minute, I'd like to know a little more about why this passage is scary to you? I mean, I totally understand if this was the law of...

                                If I can leave the other explanations and exegesis alone for a minute, I'd like to know a little more about why this passage is scary to you?

                                I mean, I totally understand if this was the law of the land, that would be truly awful, then or now, it's a detestable law by my personal standards. I can feel the fear that any woman (or, even mildy sympathetic man) would have living under a regime like this.

                                But why is this passage scary to you in the here and now?

                                1. [14]
                                  GenuinelyCrooked
                                  (edited )
                                  Link Parent
                                  Because it's evidence that God is either cruel or uncaring. Edit: I'm trying to think of a way to expand on this, but it all feels a little obvious. God could not have given this command unless 1)...

                                  Because it's evidence that God is either cruel or uncaring.

                                  Edit: I'm trying to think of a way to expand on this, but it all feels a little obvious. God could not have given this command unless 1) he's limited in some way, in which case he is not the God that the Bible describes, not the God that any Christian I have ever met believes in, and therefore not the God that I'm scared of anyway 2) he's either happy with or accepting of the trauma that this would have inflicted on the women affected and did it anyway, and he is eternal and unchanging so the God that would do that is still the exact same God that we'd be living with if he existed or 3) some reason that I will never be able to fathom or understand, and powerful beings doing awful things that the reader can't understand is literally the basis of Lovecraftian horror.

                                  6 votes
                                  1. [13]
                                    NoblePath
                                    Link Parent
                                    I’m not trying to to be obtuse, I’m just asking a ldifferent question. I’ll ask it this way: why does it matter to you that the Bible contains this commandment? Presumably you don’t care, for...

                                    I’m not trying to to be obtuse, I’m just asking a ldifferent question. I’ll ask it this way: why does it matter to you that the Bible contains this commandment? Presumably you don’t care, for example, that the ancient vedic text of manu requires that husbands should be worshipped as a god. Why then does a problematic Bible edict strike an emotional response for you?

                                    1. stu2b50
                                      Link Parent
                                      Not OP, but I'm confused why you're confused. If you're asking why they cares despite being a non-believer, they said as much: because after decades of Christian indoctrination and propaganda,...

                                      Not OP, but I'm confused why you're confused.

                                      If you're asking why they cares despite being a non-believer, they said as much: because after decades of Christian indoctrination and propaganda, there's a part of their brain that unwillingly entertains the idea that Christianity is real. They didn't grow up in India, so they don't have the same cultural baggage towards Hindu texts.

                                      If you're asking why they cares as a believer, or in moments when they believe - because it indicates that God is a huge raging asshole. Maybe he got therapy in between the old and new testament, but it doesn't bode well that the supposed all-power entity has untreated bipolar disease. The god of the judaistic religions reminds me more of donald trump than a supposed omni-potent source of all-goodness. Maybe that's why evangelicals like him so much.

                                      6 votes
                                    2. [11]
                                      GenuinelyCrooked
                                      Link Parent
                                      Like, why am I afraid of something Jehovah supposedly did, but not Zeus? Is that the question you're asking?

                                      Like, why am I afraid of something Jehovah supposedly did, but not Zeus? Is that the question you're asking?

                                      1 vote
                                      1. [10]
                                        NoblePath
                                        Link Parent
                                        I think so, yes.

                                        I think so, yes.

                                        1. [9]
                                          GenuinelyCrooked
                                          Link Parent
                                          Because I never believed that Zeus was real, not even as a child. People around me don't believe that Zeus is real. I never need to think about what I would think if Zeus was real in order to...

                                          Because I never believed that Zeus was real, not even as a child. People around me don't believe that Zeus is real. I never need to think about what I would think if Zeus was real in order to empathize with my family members. I also haven't read anything like the Bible - a text that claims to be a true accounting of his words or events in which he's participated - with regards to Zeus. I've read obviously fictional spins and wikipedia. Manu even less. I feel like I've heard the name but couldn't tell you anymore than that.

                                          Manu doesn't scare for me the same reason a horror movie I've never seen doesn't scare me.
                                          Zeus doesn't scare me for the same reason a movie like Ghostbusters doesn't scare me - there's no scary context. Jehova scares me for the same reason Marble Hornets sometimes scared me. I never thought Slenderman was real, but there really are long, creepy shadows and sometimes the mind plays tricks.

                                          3 votes
                                          1. [8]
                                            NoblePath
                                            Link Parent
                                            I had to look up Marble Hornets. I'll leave it where it is, thank you very much. Before we continue, I need to add I don't have an answer or a solution, all I have is perhaps a broader...

                                            I had to look up Marble Hornets. I'll leave it where it is, thank you very much.

                                            Before we continue, I need to add I don't have an answer or a solution, all I have is perhaps a broader understandig of the texts and a little more experience.

                                            Please correct this if I misunderstood, but I heard you say, I once believed, and am intimatetly connected to people who do still believe, and what they believe is that scripture is largely accurate and authoritative about the god being who seems capable of pretty great evil.

                                            I'm curious about a couple more things.

                                            First, does it seem to you that a lot of other people around you also believe more or less in the existence of this same god?

                                            Second, are you familiary with the basic tenets of athiesim? Super simplistically it is:

                                            God can't be ubiquitious, all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving at the same time if there are horrible things in the world which god could prevent.

                                            The usual theistic response to this is something about all-loving means free will.

                                            I buy this, but with the further acknowledment that free will that is never exercised in both directions is not really frew will. That is, if an agent with free will only ever chooses good, they don't really have free will, because they don't have actual knowledge of what it is to choose evil. I'm still working on my understanding of this.

                                            1. [7]
                                              GenuinelyCrooked
                                              (edited )
                                              Link Parent
                                              Yeah dude, it's scary! That's the point! This is correct, although he is only capable of evil by my point of view. My family does not believe him to be capable of evil by definition, as he defines...

                                              I had to look up Marble Hornets. I'll leave it where it is, thank you very much.

                                              Yeah dude, it's scary! That's the point!

                                              I once believed, and am intimatetly connected to people who do still believe, and what they believe is that scripture is largely accurate and authoritative about the god being who seems capable of pretty great evil.

                                              This is correct, although he is only capable of evil by my point of view. My family does not believe him to be capable of evil by definition, as he defines what is good. Damning someone to hell for eternity for being gay seems evil to me, but to my sister it must be good because God is the one doing it. (We can discuss whether or not he's actually doing it later - that's not a tangent that I want to explore right now. It works for this example because she believes that he does that, that's all that matters there)

                                              First, does it seem to you that a lot of other people around you also believe more or less in the existence of this same god?

                                              Most of my family members, and almost all of the Christians that I've ever met. Not many of my friends as I don't really choose to spend time with people like that. They tend to be quite homophobic, racist and sexist, regardless of how scripture describes those attitudes. One sister is an exception, she believes in a slightly different version of God, and that one doesn't scare me. (I have five sisters - this one is not the one that believes gays go to hell.)

                                              Second, are you familiary with the basic tenets of athiesim? Super simplistically it is:

                                              God can't be ubiquitious, all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving at the same time if there are horrible things in the world which god could prevent.

                                              You're describing theodicy, or "the problem of evil", which is actually from Christian apologetics. Atheism doesn't really have "tenets". It's not a system of belief, it's a lack of belief. The only tenet of atheism is "there are no gods".

                                              I've heard the free will response before. To be frank, I find it extremely frustrating! There are plenty of ways that God could have done things differently without restricting free will at all. That and "God works in mysterious ways" are always the go-tos and they don't address the issue at all, especially in this particular case. This is an issue of God issuing a command. How would issuing a different, better command, but still a command, be any more infringing of our free will? He issued lots of commands, he clearly doesn't consider telling people what to do to be a violation of their free will. Why did he issue this, super gross, super scary command, instead of one to be nice to rape victims?

                                              Also, and this is way less relevant but I think it's very frustrating that it gets overlooked - he designed our bodies! Hymens don't work the way that some people think they do, they don't always or only break during the first time having sex, but if virginity is so important to God, then why don't they work that way? And why can't they be voluntarily moved so that the way they'd break during consensual sex would be visibly different from the way they'd break during rape? It wouldn't prevent rape or extramarital sex, so free will stays intact. All it would do is prevent innocent victims from being labeled "guilty adulteresses", and considering the instructions that God did give, it seems like it would be a boon to free will to know which is which. More information doesn't impede free will, it strengthens it. And if it actually doesn't, if more information is bad somehow, then why do we have as much information as we have?? And despite free will being so important, he designed our brains in such a way that tumors and traumatic brain injuries can essentially take away our free will! At the very least, they can remove our impulse control, which is a serious blow to free will if not removing it completely.

                                              Please don't get bogged down in that last bit. The paragraph above it is much more important. One command must necessarily restrict free will exactly the same as another does, by virtue of both being verbal instructions rather than geases or other forms of direct control or meddling. So why this horrible command, and not a better one? Is God fallible? Then he is not as the Bible describes. Or is he cruel - or at least indifferent to the suffering of rape victims? Then I am right to be scared of him. Is it somehow cosmically good for rape victims to suffer in this way? Then he is the God that created the world in which that is true,

                                              and I am right to be scared of him. Except that he isn't real, and I shouldn't be scared of things that aren't real. Sorry, I know that probably doesn't feel nice for you to read if you expanded this, but I have to remind myself.

                                              6 votes
                                              1. [6]
                                                NoblePath
                                                Link Parent
                                                Your text box is what I am trying to understand with you. I’m curious why you are scared of this god if you don’t believe in it? And i’m absolutely not trying to induce an “aha he is real” kind of...

                                                Your text box is what I am trying to understand with you. I’m curious why you are scared of this god if you don’t believe in it? And i’m absolutely not trying to induce an “aha he is real” kind of moment. I’m perfectly fine for you not to believe.

                                                It seems at one time you did believe, and what changed is that your perspective on evil superceded the notion that whatever god does is good, all else is evil?

                                                1. GenuinelyCrooked
                                                  Link Parent
                                                  Like, imagine growing up believing that Cthulhu is real. You realize as a teenager that he was fiction, but your family still believes that he's sleeping down there in the ocean. Two thirds of the...

                                                  Like, imagine growing up believing that Cthulhu is real. You realize as a teenager that he was fiction, but your family still believes that he's sleeping down there in the ocean. Two thirds of the people in your country believe that he's real. The laws in your country are massively influenced by the Cult of Cthulhu. Your country celebrates his birth and non-death every year and people get time off of school and work for it. His commands are etched in stone in front of courthouses. People's opinion on geopolitics is influenced by where they think Cthulhu will arise from his slumber to wreak havoc on the land, and when they talk to you about it, they assume that you believe it, too.

                                                  You don't think you'd ever get a little freaked out thinking about if they're right? If it were true?

                                                  5 votes
                                                2. GenuinelyCrooked
                                                  Link Parent
                                                  You never feel fear caused by something that you don't believe in? You've never seen a horror movie and then later had a nightmare or a moment of fear triggered by the thing the movie was about?...

                                                  You never feel fear caused by something that you don't believe in? You've never seen a horror movie and then later had a nightmare or a moment of fear triggered by the thing the movie was about? Never heard a noise at night and was momentarily afraid that it was some monster or ghoul that a second of thought reminded you doesn't exist? Lots of fear is irrational. Some people are afraid of spiders, and yes spiders are real, but the threat that the vast majority of them pose to people is not. Even if they completely understand that the spider cannot hurt them, cannot affect them in any way, they're still afraid of that spider.

                                                  Edit: Like the example that I already gave, Marble Hornets. You said you had no interest in that, right? Because it's creepy, right? But you don't think it's real, right? It's like that.

                                                  As I mentioned before, I struggle with anxiety. I didn't really have these thoughts or this fear around God until fairly recently, when my anxiety was already extremely heightened by something else. That other situation has resolved, but the anxiety has stuck around. It's like my brain has a whole bunch of extra fear in it that it doesn't know what to do with, and this is just what it's latched on to. That's why I mentioned elsewhere that I probably just need to get back on medication rather than probing this topic.

                                                  It seems at one time you did believe, and what changed is that your perspective on evil superceded the notion that whatever god does is good, all else is evil?

                                                  No, at one time, I believed in God, and only knew the neutral/good/somewhat-easy-to-frame-to-a-child-as-good things about him. I started down the path to atheism by actually reading the Bible on my own, rather than the passages I was directed to by the adults and people around me. The first passage that made me feel that God might be evil is actually the one that I brought up earlier. I became convinced, separately but simultaneously, that the entity described in the Bible is evil and the events described in it were impossible. I didn't come to that conclusion quickly or easily. I did pray about it, and beg God to help me understand, so if he was real and good and wanted me to believe in him, he had plenty of time to communicate that to me.

                                                  2 votes
                                                3. [3]
                                                  GenuinelyCrooked
                                                  Link Parent
                                                  Should I stop checking back on this conversation?

                                                  Should I stop checking back on this conversation?

                                                  1 vote
                                                  1. [2]
                                                    NoblePath
                                                    Link Parent
                                                    I'm sorry,, I had a lot of family stuff around xmas and couldn't really focus on this meaningfully. I'm not sure that I have ever been afraid of something I didn't believe in, or at least believe...

                                                    I'm sorry,, I had a lot of family stuff around xmas and couldn't really focus on this meaningfully.

                                                    I'm not sure that I have ever been afraid of something I didn't believe in, or at least believe was possible, which is admittedly, a really big universe.

                                                    I also struggle with anxiety, which I define as fear with no immediately discernable source. As opposed to actual fear, which feels the same but I can identify the source while in the fear. For example, when I first learned I was getting divorced, i was terrified with fear. I also wake up terrified in the middle of the night feeling exactly the same, but there's no reason. I'm not about to get divorced, I'm not about to get eaten by a tiger, my kids are sleeping soundly. this is anxiety.

                                                    Now, the anxiety does have a source I believe. Part of it is brain based, when certain things resemble terrifying and horrifying expirences I endured, especially as a child, my brain reacts as if those things are happening agin right now.

                                                    One of the horrifying things I experienced as a child was being taught about an evil god who stood ready to send me to a lake of fire for all eternity just because I forgot to beg forgiveness for swiping an extra piece of pie. And so, sometimes when I wake up in the wee hours some part of my brain is recalling the terror of lying awake desperately trying to remember all my sins and get forgiveness for them.

                                                    I say all that to say this, when I find something supernatural scary in a movie or story, it's usually related to this residual emotional belief that's stored in my brain. Intellectually I don't believe in that nonsense (unless it's HP Lovecraft), but a part of my emotional self still does. And maybe, in some cases, my intellectual self also admits at least the possibility. Per the bard, there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in the mind of men (or something like that).

                                                    In your case, I wonder whether there are some residuals for you, and what those are, that would make god's ancient law so terrifying for you. A couple of possibilities, and note I am totally just pulling these out of my hat, are that your early conditioning is stil in effect on some level, or that there is still some lingering belief in the power and authority of god, no matter how evil.

                                                    Incidentally, struggles like these go back to the very early years of Christianity. Marcion, later declared heretic, maintained that the God of the old testament was the same character in the new testament that tempted Jesus in the desert, and that Christ's father was another, pure loving, being altogether.

                                                    FWIW, my personal current professional and confessional belief about the old testament is that it represents a myopic and woefully incomplete human attempt to codify poorly understood godly principles.

                                                    1. GenuinelyCrooked
                                                      (edited )
                                                      Link Parent
                                                      No apology necessary, it was a genuine question, not a passive aggressive one. You and either have very different experiences, or very different definitions, of anxiety and fear. I consider...

                                                      No apology necessary, it was a genuine question, not a passive aggressive one.

                                                      You and either have very different experiences, or very different definitions, of anxiety and fear. I consider anxiety to be fear that negatively impacts my ability to function. This can be for many reasons - sometimes because it's overwhelming or intrusive. Often it's because the thing or situation that I'm worried about is not realistic. I've had panic attacks where I've worried that I'm cheating on my husband and blocking out the memories. That my cats are going to die because I don't take good enough care of them because I don't love them enough. That my husband secretly hates me and is only staying with me because he feels bad for me. Those are particularly extreme examples that I only worried about acutely after I had accidentally eaten a THC edible, but it was a more extreme version of an unrealistic sort of worry that I experience all the time. When I was in college, a whole bunch of awful things happened that led to me dropping out. Now I'm in a different country under completely new circumstances and I'm still terrified to go back to school in case those things happen again.

                                                      Edit: I can always name a cause for my fear or anxiety, although I believe it's possible that the feeling comes first and my subconscious supplies me with a reason as a reaponse, rather than the other way around.

                                                      I spend quite a lot of time worried about things that I would bet money won't happen, maybe even can't happen. Fear of a God that I don't believe in isn't all that strange to me. I don't like to let me feet stick out from under the covers because it feels like something might grab them. I believe in God and that boogeyman roughly the same amount. I don't think that means part of me is secretly still Christian.

                                                      3 votes
              2. [3]
                sparksbet
                Link Parent
                Yeah, I find the "no true Scotsman" bullshit particularly common among Christians -- both conservative and progressive! -- who want to disavow other Christians. I used this rhetoric myself back...

                Yeah, I find the "no true Scotsman" bullshit particularly common among Christians -- both conservative and progressive! -- who want to disavow other Christians. I used this rhetoric myself back when I was a Christian, but its weaknesses become really apparent when you watch Christians interact with non-Christians. I get why it makes sense as a criticism internally between Christians, since in that context you're essentially accusing them of violating the will of God and perverting the Christian faith. I'm all for that in inter-Christian fights. But when it's used to defend Christianity as a faith against non-Christians, it's essentially a shield against all criticism, as everything worth criticizing is blamed on those who aren't "True Christians." I think it's fundamentally a huge weakness among many Christians to be unwilling to acknowledge that, hey, parts of Christianity have been really horrible, without insisting that it's not really Christianity.

                6 votes
                1. [2]
                  NoblePath
                  Link Parent
                  A couple of things I'll lay down here. First, the "no true Scotsman fallacy" is not universally accepted among scholars, and certainly not among professionals. True or not, it's not always...

                  A couple of things I'll lay down here.

                  First, the "no true Scotsman fallacy" is not universally accepted among scholars, and certainly not among professionals. True or not, it's not always appropriate.

                  Second, if I can adequately define "true Christians," then I can certainly distinguish between groups that are similarly identified but not equally qualified. Simply because I buy bmw wheels and replace the emblems on my VW don't mean it's not still, in fact, a true VW and not, in fact, a true BMW.

                  If I can discern that a group identifying themselves as Christians are behaving in a way that is not in accordance with the way of Christ, I have no problem apply a label of "false" to their Christianity; although I am more likely to put it in theological terms and call them "fallen" Christians.

                  That said, there are Christians who do awful things, same as non-believers. The question I ask is not whether Christians to bad things, but can Christ be effective at helping people do good things?

                  1 vote
                  1. sparksbet
                    Link Parent
                    My use of "no true Scotsman" here is not an attempt to point out a fallacy (I deliberately avoided that word) in a scholarly context, but a shorthand description for a pattern of behavior I find...

                    My use of "no true Scotsman" here is not an attempt to point out a fallacy (I deliberately avoided that word) in a scholarly context, but a shorthand description for a pattern of behavior I find frustrating from Christians.

                    Ultimately I think it's prideful to assume that you can tell the difference between "real" and "fake" Christians -- especially when your own beliefs would get you sorted into the "fake" category by plenty of other Christian groups. Among Christians, I think accusations that their behavior is not Christlike and thus not truly Christian can work, because you're calling them out on their bullshit. It's a "you shouldn't be doing these things" directed at the people doing those things. Using this to discount horrible acts committed by Christians and defend the faith when those are pointed out by non-Christians who have been victims of those acts is a different thing entirely. When "they're not true Christians" comes up in that context, it comes off as more of a "you shouldn't be criticizing us for hurting you."

                    You acknowledge in your comment that Christians can do (and have done) horrible things, and it doesn't ruin your theology. Ultimately it's acknowledging the harm that Christians have caused that non-Christians are after here, and "they're not true Christians" as a response in that context functions as avoiding acknowledging those harms, much less attempting to remedy them.

                    10 votes
              3. [3]
                DefinitelyNotAFae
                Link Parent
                This source describes what I've seen discussed in the past in regards to Leviticus: Queer Bible Hermeneutics I have also seen the argument it's about temple prostitution I think. I can't speak to...

                This source describes what I've seen discussed in the past in regards to Leviticus:

                Queer Bible Hermeneutics

                I have also seen the argument it's about temple prostitution I think.

                I can't speak to the blog specifically but that's about typical for the discussion. I have seen similar discussions about the lines in Romans, Corinthians, etc. but the gist is typically that a broad statement about consensual adult sexual relationships is being implied by language which is actually (allegedly as I don't speak Biblical Hebrew or Ancient Greek) very specific terminology for very specific activities happening in that time and place.

                The thing is, that both progressive and conservative Christianity are still "true" Christianity in the sense that they're subsets of the larger whole even if they disavow each other. It's rarely helpful to argue that "they" aren't real Christians because "they" just say the same about "you"

                2 votes
                1. [2]
                  GenuinelyCrooked
                  Link Parent
                  Thanks for the link! I wonder if there's any way that I could get my mom or sister to read it. The use of the word "strategy" in this blog gives me pause. I understand that all attempts to...

                  Thanks for the link! I wonder if there's any way that I could get my mom or sister to read it.

                  The use of the word "strategy" in this blog gives me pause. I understand that all attempts to understand something in a language we do not natively speak, (especially when we do not have access to the original or even a verifiably complete copy) will require strategy to understand, but the idea of seeking to understand it in a way that is not bigoted and cruel seems like starting from the conclusion you want and working backwards, rather than seeing what the evidence supports. I suppose it doesn't really matter for my purposes, but motivated reasoning makes me uneasy when I spot it.

                  3 votes
                  1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                    Link Parent
                    Yeah I did no vetting on the source, I can just speak to having seen those arguments made previously, and they had source citations in text. I paid a lot more attention to Christian apologia when...

                    Yeah I did no vetting on the source, I can just speak to having seen those arguments made previously, and they had source citations in text.

                    I paid a lot more attention to Christian apologia when I still was one. And I don't have as much on the tip of the tongue as I used to

                    3 votes
            2. [11]
              NoblePath
              Link Parent
              Actually, I believe I can say that, and here's why. Self-centeredness is inherent in human nature, and people treat each other horribly for all kinds of different reasons and have throughtout all...

              you can't claim things like homophobia and antisemitism that come from that same Christian hegemony are somehow unrelated to Christianity.

              Actually, I believe I can say that, and here's why. Self-centeredness is inherent in human nature, and people treat each other horribly for all kinds of different reasons and have throughtout all of human history as far as anybody knows. Animals also do this, but we don't call it cruel, we just call it nature taking its course.

              No religion is without well regarded adherents who are also totally evil in some ways, and so many of these adherents have become so organized it sometimes seems inextricably tied to the religion itself. This is hardly limited to Christianity. Had Christianity been absent, people would have reviled each other and acted badly toward each other and themselves.

              A better way to look at the issue is how helpful is the religion (or social group or whatever) at helping us reach our better nature? I think Christianity has done an OK job at promoting a virtuous society. Containing the worst of human nature is a very difficult job; that it happens at all ever is an indication of some kind of divine functioning in my view. I understand there is an argument to be made that someting about Christianity enabled conolianism* and its associated ills, and that's certainly true of calvinism as far as I can tell. But that is not the true religion of Christ.

              *this is a typo for colonialism. But, I like it, I think I'm going to name my new religion canolianism, where the Eucharist is canoli.

              2 votes
              1. [3]
                sparksbet
                Link Parent
                I simply don't think you can so easily brush these things off as "just human nature" -- though ofc I understand what you mean theologically, since it's human nature to sin, I chose to bring up...

                I simply don't think you can so easily brush these things off as "just human nature" -- though ofc I understand what you mean theologically, since it's human nature to sin, I chose to bring up antisemitism specifically because of how deeply rooted it specifically has been in Christendom for centuries, and how heavily justified by Christianity it has been. Antisemitism isn't a vice that exists divorced from the dominant cultural hegemony like something more fundamental like pride or envy. It exists in a religious and cultural context that, at least in the West, is pervaded by Christianity. I've also seen Christians try to insist that things like the Crusades are somehow not something that can be tied to Christianity -- and the logical leaps to justify such stances can get pretty torturous.

                It feels ultimately like a shirking of responsibility to give Christianity credit for any good in the West but no blame for the horrors in the West, even those that are deeply tied to it as an institution.

                I would definitely have attended church more if the Eucharist were canoli

                10 votes
                1. [2]
                  NoblePath
                  Link Parent
                  A couple responses to this. I don't just mean theologically. I mean, humans have an animal nature, and that nature favors genetic redistribution over everything. Which means individuals have a...

                  A couple responses to this.

                  I don't just mean theologically. I mean, humans have an animal nature, and that nature favors genetic redistribution over everything. Which means individuals have a biological impulse to favor the survival of their offspring in decision making. This leads to all kinds of awful, deadly behavior. There's an argument to be made that civilization is just a really complex form of this.

                  My observation is that Christianity has done much to provide people a framework to endure and also to do great good in the community, limiting somewhat the impact of this genetic predisposition. I agree that without Christianity people would have done good and evil both. I don't know whether there could have been something better the last few thousand years, that's an academic question.

                  What I believe is that Christianity is the framework where I am now, and it is therefore the best framework for me to do good in. My faith is that there is a loving God behind all that.

                  3 votes
                  1. sparksbet
                    Link Parent
                    I definitely don't take issue with your having that faith -- my comment has more to do with patterns in how Christians behave towards non-Christians than your belief that it's the right faith for...

                    I definitely don't take issue with your having that faith -- my comment has more to do with patterns in how Christians behave towards non-Christians than your belief that it's the right faith for you. I hope that my comments have at least given you food for thought on that front! Thank you for reading and responding to them.

                    2 votes
              2. [7]
                DefinitelyNotAFae
                Link Parent
                And had Christianity not existed people would have been kind, altruistic and formed supportive communities, loving each other as well.

                Had Christianity been absent, people would have reviled each other and acted badly toward each other and themselves.

                And had Christianity not existed people would have been kind, altruistic and formed supportive communities, loving each other as well.

                8 votes
                1. [6]
                  NoblePath
                  Link Parent
                  You are absolutely correct. I recognize that you have a particular tenderness around this issue, and don't want to be preached to or proselytized. Neither do I! Despite my predelictions and...

                  You are absolutely correct.

                  I recognize that you have a particular tenderness around this issue, and don't want to be preached to or proselytized. Neither do I! Despite my predelictions and professional turns, I am driven by a desire to love all creation more deeply, and that can't be done with any kind of coercion or judgment. Jesus only ever judged those who would judge or defraud others' spirituality. I promise to always be mindful of those who are sensitive to Christian coercion and fundamentalistm (and all coercion and fundamentalism). It should be easy, I am one.

                  It should be easy, but it isn't always. A really sad effect of trauma for some people like myself is we adopt the voice and point of view of the perpetrator, and punish ourselves and others like us for having experienced the same trauma. It is, quite literally in my view, insane. It's also a defense mechanism, and it really sucks.

                  I believe that Christ can be a part of the solution to this issue, and am working to make it so for myself and others.

                  One point of clarification. I do not believe "the west is the best." I do believe that western values, at least at their best, are Christian values at their best. Probably the greatest example is the Quakers, and all the influence they had on the U.S. Constitution and the bill of rights. I also believe that for better or worse, it is the dominant framework where I am geographically and culturally, and therefore the best framework within which to work for Good.

                  2 votes
                  1. [5]
                    DefinitelyNotAFae
                    Link Parent
                    Tenderness is not the word I'd use. I appreciate people's beliefs generally, and think religion does much good and much evil and that both are because people are capable of being rising apes and...

                    Tenderness is not the word I'd use. I appreciate people's beliefs generally, and think religion does much good and much evil and that both are because people are capable of being rising apes and falling angels in one.

                    However, I don't appreciate the perspective of that "maybe something besides Christianity would have come along in the past few thousand years" as if other faiths didn't come and go during that time. As if there weren't many more in many many forms before then, some still around today. It's well and good to say that everything leads to the same end depending on your point of view, but your response to the Jewish perspective was one I found dismissive and one my Jewish friends have explicitly called harmful.

                    Because Jesus seems to have been a good dude, but he's not my Christ. The "golden rule" goes back to ancient Egypt and has existed in many cultures with only one real throughline, people believed that you should treat others kindly and engage in reciprocity. We fundamentally disagree that these values are inherently Christian - the reasons the people in these spaces are culturally if not actually Christian is colonization and the Roman Empire before that. A small apocalyptic faith became a conqueror by sword and gun and led the world poorer for the deep losses of many indigenous beliefs.

                    Regardless, your comment about wanting a "church" of Tildes users makes me less comfortable with the idea of preaching not more. We fundamentally disagree and that's fine, I hope your faith brings you peace and community, I just ask you not to preach "on the street corners" of this site.

                    14 votes
                    1. [2]
                      Sapholia
                      Link Parent
                      You've made so many excellent points in this topic, but I want to thank you for this one in particular: the fact that the West would not be a Christianity-aligned society without a very bloody and...

                      You've made so many excellent points in this topic, but I want to thank you for this one in particular: the fact that the West would not be a Christianity-aligned society without a very bloody and torturous history borne of a religious sense of superiority and entitlement, leading to subjugation and genocide on a massive scale.

                      Christianity is a complex subject with many interwoven parts of good and bad. I don't wish to blame anyone for wanting to concentrate on the good parts and move forward to something better; as a close parallel, I often struggle with how to be a "good citizen" of the US as a descendant of colonizers, myself.

                      But to lay the common virtues of Western society solely at Christianity's feet is something else again. It feels less like concentrating on the good parts and instead like ignoring the enormity of what led us here in the first place. I keep trying to come up with a good simile to demonstrate what this sounds like to me, but I'm afraid the one that seems the most accurate is that it feels like saying, "It's a good thing medical science has advanced so far," while ignoring that the advancements they're talking about are on the backs of Nazi inhumane experiments.

                      I should note here that I have no Christianity-based trauma that makes this a trigger subject.

                      Discarded similes: It feels like saying, "I'm glad Grandma died because now I get to have the heirloom jewelry." Or, it feels like saying, "Good thing the neighbor's house burned down and they lost everything, because now I can buy their land for cheap."

                      9 votes
                      1. NoblePath
                        Link Parent
                        To clarify my position using your medical metaphor: I'm saying that what is, today, on the ground, is medical science that we have. Yes, it was horrible what the Nazis (and Americans, remember the...

                        To clarify my position using your medical metaphor: I'm saying that what is, today, on the ground, is medical science that we have. Yes, it was horrible what the Nazis (and Americans, remember the Tuckaseegee experiements?) did. What we have, though, today on the ground, is an understanding that includes knowledge gained there, so we should deploy that knowledge to make everybody healthier.

                        Should the Church have committed all the atrocities it did? Absolutely not. Should we include first nations, wicca, hindus and everyone else in promoting good? Absolutely. All I am saying is that right now, in the West, at least from where I can see, it is Christian virtue that is most understood by most people as good. I futher believe that Christian virtue--generosity, temperence, altruism chief among them--are really good values and way to be good to each other, and that Christ, in the here and now, for me, is the best approach to acting on them.

                        This is not to say that no one else is good, understands goodness, is incapable of being good, all to the same degree as any Christian. I am also not saying that people have to become Christians to receive or deliver good acts, "accept Jesus into their heart," or any nonsense like that.

                    2. [2]
                      NoblePath
                      Link Parent
                      I’m truly sorry we are missing each so widely. I hope if you run across me preaching anywhere you won’t take it personally.

                      I’m truly sorry we are missing each so widely. I hope if you run across me preaching anywhere you won’t take it personally.

                      1 vote
                      1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                        Link Parent
                        We've disagreed that Christianity is the way to "reach" the "West" since you first mentioned it in a previous thread. That hasn't changed and I still think you're brushing off millennia of "treat...

                        We've disagreed that Christianity is the way to "reach" the "West" since you first mentioned it in a previous thread. That hasn't changed and I still think you're brushing off millennia of "treat others as you would yourself" by considering it uniquely Christian.

                        I'd have the same reaction to encountering preaching outside of a church or religious event if it were you vs anyone else, but I still wouldn't be taking it personally. I don't take Salvation Army bell ringers personally, and I don't want to participate in their church, but at least they just wish me a Merry Christmas and don't preach.

                        But since the only place I'd "come across it" is likely to be here, I will likely express my opinions as relevant at the time. I'd still rather you not, but as always that's just my opinion.

                        8 votes
  2. [2]
    TonesTones
    Link
    Thank you for the touching and meaningful writeup. I felt how much you have been through and how many things you have tried and felt like they haven’t worked. As somebody who is not particularly...

    Thank you for the touching and meaningful writeup. I felt how much you have been through and how many things you have tried and felt like they haven’t worked.

    As somebody who is not particularly religious, I thought I would take some time to encourage and express why I have a lot of respect for religion, including Christianity.

    First, churches are one of the few places you can find a community outside of family and work (the “third place”). They also provide a total supportive community, which is actually quite rare in modern urban society. Many people in cities and suburbs rely on just their immediate family and closest friends, which puts stress on everyone when problems arise. A church (or other larger communities) is a much larger supportive network. These are sorely needed in today’s world (people are lonely!), and if secularism continues to grow, I expect some secular solution to this issue to become popular within my lifetime. For now, churches are one of the best places to find a community.

    Second, religion encourages belief in a higher power or greater plan. Religion and science are not irreconciliable, but the belief in a greater plan and the belief that the world is fundamentally chaotic are. In particular, scientists that believe in a chaotic world often conclude that humans need to solve their problems with technology to reach utopia. Religion provides an alternative perspective; as I understand, Christianity teaches that the world offers hardships and with strength through God, we can face those hardships with goodness and then reach heaven after life. I think the latter is a much more healthy way of emotionally coping with the injustice, unfairness, and cruelty inherent to our world. Obviously, there are problems we can solve, but not everything is within our control.

    Finally, belief in God or something greater is one of the most straightforward paths to true humility. I find the Abrahamic characterization of human as simply creation oddly powerful. It also allows people to believe that we are placed somewhere for a reason; regardless of the truth of that, for me, it makes it way easier to find meaning in my circumstance instead of becoming angry that things aren’t the way I might want.

    I hope someone enjoyed reading this. In a positive discussion of religion, I wanted to contribute some of the things I really like about religion and think the secular world could use more of.

    11 votes
    1. NoblePath
      Link Parent
      Thanks for your insight and response. I'll add, everything you said can be true even without an afterlife. Augustine promoted the idea that we are created as an act of love, and with the purpose...

      Thanks for your insight and response. I'll add, everything you said can be true even without an afterlife. Augustine promoted the idea that we are created as an act of love, and with the purpose to love. It's a very present moment kind of proposition: our happiness is found in fulfilling our purpose, and is independent of circumstances.

      5 votes
  3. [41]
    chocobean
    (edited )
    Link
    Sounds like you're finally heeding the Call that had been happening for a while!! I'm very excited for you! I mean, anybody making that kind of pivot as an adult is commendable, but taking a leap...

    Sounds like you're finally heeding the Call that had been happening for a while!! I'm very excited for you! I mean, anybody making that kind of pivot as an adult is commendable, but taking a leap of faith as you said, can be much harder. The whole thing would feel more insane and scary except for how right it feels I bet.

    Treasure the fervor - this may last for a long time or a little shorter, but don't worry when it subsides a bit. Once you've had a glimpse of your True Country, everything else is fine tuning and pausing to pick up its trail again before the next burst.

    I still don’t believe, but I have made a decision to act in faith anyway.

    There are a few things I've held on to from my Protestant upbringing, and this is one of them: love for your spouse isn't a feeling, it's a set of actions you decide to do anyway even when you don't feel like it. This is true faith (I think).

    [Edit- from the liturgy of St John Chrysostom - "We have seen the True Light! We have received the Heavenly Spirit! We have found the True Faith! Worshiping the Undivided Trinity, Who has saved us." The act of worship itself is the faith, not some hazy wishful feeling.]

    Do you want to preach to Tildes in a regular thread maybe? We might not be the most receptive crowd but I wonder if we could benefit from hearing from someone who feels this passionately about something.

    10 votes
    1. [7]
      Felicity
      Link Parent
      I would really, really prefer if we didn't do that. Despite not being remotely religious, I still love reading about religion. Your religion oriented posts in particular are very fun to read,...

      Do you want to preach to Tildes in a regular thread maybe?

      I would really, really prefer if we didn't do that.

      Despite not being remotely religious, I still love reading about religion. Your religion oriented posts in particular are very fun to read, specifically because I don't feel like I'm being preached to. It doesn't feel like you're trying to teach me a lesson when you bring up a verse or a story from the bible to make some of your points. You do it elegantly. If that's what you mean by preaching, then sure, I'd love to see more people being open about their beliefs - my only concern is if it gets to the point where people are making posts for the sole reason of "spreading the word" or teaching why something is a sin.

      25 votes
      1. [4]
        chocobean
        Link Parent
        I hear you, I understand completely, and I want to personally apologize to you and /u/shamedSalmon and /u/definitelyNotAFae and /u/NoblePath and everyone else who may had been upset and offended...

        I hear you, I understand completely, and I want to personally apologize to you and /u/shamedSalmon and /u/definitelyNotAFae and /u/NoblePath and everyone else who may had been upset and offended for my carelessness.

        Christianity is a loaded weapon, aimed at a wide variety of people within our society, and we have probably all been hurt by people proudly and remorselessly doing it in God's name. I had been very excited for NoblePath's personal journey and gotten carried away, without considering what divisiveness my words would have brought. (I mean, you fine folks on Tildes already know I stream of consciousness but this is different)

        I just threw out a few words and went to bed, and woke up to this thread having been derailed.

        For that, I want to ask for your forgiveness.

        Members of Tildes, forgive me.

        10 votes
        1. Felicity
          Link Parent
          I understand completely. Based on everything I've read from you, I'm sure you have nothing but good intentions. Like the others said I don't think you need my forgiveness, but you have it nonetheless.

          I understand completely. Based on everything I've read from you, I'm sure you have nothing but good intentions. Like the others said I don't think you need my forgiveness, but you have it nonetheless.

          7 votes
        2. DefinitelyNotAFae
          Link Parent
          You have no need for forgiveness from me, you haven't harmed, upset, or offended me at all. You expressed your thoughts genuinely and I did the same.

          You have no need for forgiveness from me, you haven't harmed, upset, or offended me at all. You expressed your thoughts genuinely and I did the same.

          6 votes
        3. ShamedSalmon
          Link Parent
          Having had the night to think about it, I personally believe that you, me, and everyone else are on the same page about avoiding remorseless slander for Christian culture's sake. To be fair to OP,...

          Having had the night to think about it, I personally believe that you, me, and everyone else are on the same page about avoiding remorseless slander for Christian culture's sake. To be fair to OP, he seems to have even declined the offer to preach. While I may take issue with the gōng-hé attitude of others about allowing proselytizing, or some of the word choices that OP has used in his post and responses, I can stand to consider that OP is at the beginning of his path in education and will be learning a lot more. I can also better myself by appreciating the fact that you really were responding with excitement over another's personal development—which is not wrong, nor a bad thing to be excited over, so I do not fault you or hold you in any ill-regard.

          If you need my forgiveness, you have it, but I personally do not think you have done anything wrong. On the contrary, it is probably important that Tildes has a conversation on preaching, which you have enabled us to conduct, and I thank you for that!

          At the end of the day, I want to see users treated with fairness, consideration, and compassion. My impression is that you want that too. In addition, while I may struggle to understand OP's points of view, I think that in his own way, he wants that as well and may not have intended for things to get derailed either. Though, I think we should have the conversation somewhere and I will admit that I'm glad to see people putting their foot down. However, I do not blame you or consider you as having committed any wrong-doing and I hope this doesn't impact your day.

          6 votes
      2. phoenixrises
        Link Parent
        I remember when I first joined here there was someone who only seemed to post about UFO's or something like that? I remember they were pleasant at first and then eventually slowly started to get...

        I remember when I first joined here there was someone who only seemed to post about UFO's or something like that? I remember they were pleasant at first and then eventually slowly started to get more annoying to talk to after multiple people kept pointing out that his posts were super flimsy, something of the sort and then they were eventually banned. I kinda imagine a regular "preaching" post going that way.

        I'm an ex-Christian though as well so maybe I'm just biased.

        7 votes
      3. smoontjes
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Never mind. Reading the rest of the thread changed my view on this. Hard no to preaching - but fair enough with informative posts about religion itself as long as it's not just bible passages or...

        I would really, really prefer if we didn't do that.

        They could always just use a specific tag. That way, you can filter it if you don't want to see it - I know I don't. But I also don't want to restrict people from talking about a topic they're passionate about (as long as it is not harmful, like the thing about sins as you say)

        Never mind. Reading the rest of the thread changed my view on this. Hard no to preaching - but fair enough with informative posts about religion itself as long as it's not just bible passages or whatever.

        5 votes
    2. [2]
      NoblePath
      Link Parent
      I honestly long for a Church of Tilderinos. I'll see what I can do.

      Do you want to preach to Tildes

      I honestly long for a Church of Tilderinos. I'll see what I can do.

      2 votes
      1. chocobean
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        We are guests on a platform as clear minorities, and many of us carry wounds from the church (or other religious institutions) so I understand why so many have expressed a clear no. Perhaps even...

        We are guests on a platform as clear minorities, and many of us carry wounds from the church (or other religious institutions) so I understand why so many have expressed a clear no. Perhaps even being filterable would be inappropriate alas. I'm interested, as is /u/updawg, but it would feel selfish for me to benefit at others' loss.

        Maybe just one (this?) thread that is kept 'live', that people would only have to ignore once forever?

        5 votes
    3. [31]
      updawg
      Link Parent
      That would honestly be awesome. It would be filterable and I'm sure there would be some great conversations.

      Do you want to preach to Tildes in a regular thread maybe? We might not be the most receptive crowd but I wonder if we could benefit from hearing from someone who feels this passionately about something.

      That would honestly be awesome. It would be filterable and I'm sure there would be some great conversations.

      2 votes
      1. [29]
        ShamedSalmon
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Just some food for thought, if this is going to be normalized on the site: in the event that a Protestant, Conservative, KJV-only Biblical-Literalist or a Catholic, Conservative, Latin-Rite...

        Just some food for thought, if this is going to be normalized on the site: in the event that a Protestant, Conservative, KJV-only Biblical-Literalist or a Catholic, Conservative, Latin-Rite Dominionist take to Tildes to likewise preach their own views, what criteria should the mods use to determine what is or is not appropriate for the site? How should it be handled in a way that is fair to all parties, religious and non, without alienating anyone? What doctrinal criteria would be considered on or off limits while still treating the various faiths of different preachers fairly? For example, anti-abortion is a critical part of the two aforementioned groups' social doctrines; should this be allowed to be preached? Is requiring others to filter it out a reasonable expectation on behalf of Tildes and it's mods?

        13 votes
        1. [22]
          DefinitelyNotAFae
          Link Parent
          I feel pretty opposed to the idea of preaching here. And your example is great... and yet you only listed Christian faiths. And there are certainly far more extreme Christian faiths than even the...
          • Exemplary

          I feel pretty opposed to the idea of preaching here. And your example is great... and yet you only listed Christian faiths. And there are certainly far more extreme Christian faiths than even the ones you shared.

          What about Islam? Asatru? Hinduism? Wicca? Many people might like to learn more about those faiths, but that isn't the same as being preached to or taught or proselytized to. Will folks feel as kindly to preaching when it isn't the umbrella faith they share, even if a different denomination. Christianity is a religion that specifically believes in recruiting people to the faith. And that makes me quite uncomfortable with Tildes being that platform. People sharing threads like this one, or blog posts they write, etc. I think is different. Add in that many people who grow up in Christian cultures have religious trauma from Christianity and preaching can create a Very unwelcome space for some queer people for example.

          If preaching is allowed and one wants to go on a sermon about homosexuality citing quotes from the bible and teaching their faith, will that be permitted? If they're saying these sinners go to hell they're saying that I'm going to hell. And I'd be marking that malice immediately. But I don't like the idea of opening that door. There is absolutely space to talk about faith and beliefs without preaching.

          27 votes
          1. [6]
            Plik
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            It's a hard no from me, I don't miss having to deal with Christians and their faith at all since leaving the US (honestly it's one of the huge benefits that I frequently overlook). If someone...

            It's a hard no from me, I don't miss having to deal with Christians and their faith at all since leaving the US (honestly it's one of the huge benefits that I frequently overlook).

            If someone wants to preach online, start a YouTube channel, please don't bring it to such a small forum as Tildes.

            15 votes
            1. [5]
              karim
              Link Parent
              Oooor, just filter out humanities.religion or some preaching tag. I did that for politcs stuff.

              Oooor, just filter out humanities.religion or some preaching tag. I did that for politcs stuff.

              2 votes
              1. GenuinelyCrooked
                Link Parent
                But I'm interested in religion and I do want to read about it, just not in the form of preaching specifically. I enjoy analyzing it and learning about it, I don't want to filter those...

                But I'm interested in religion and I do want to read about it, just not in the form of preaching specifically. I enjoy analyzing it and learning about it, I don't want to filter those opportunities out. I just don't want to see sermons on Tildes.

                13 votes
              2. [3]
                Plik
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                Yeah that's always a solution for everything. But it could also be said for flat earth theories. I just don't see the need for preaching on Tildes. I am sure there are plenty of Christian forums...

                Yeah that's always a solution for everything. But it could also be said for flat earth theories.

                I just don't see the need for preaching on Tildes. I am sure there are plenty of Christian forums specifically for that. It's just generally annoying to me because it's always Christianity with this stuff. When was the last time you saw jews, muslims, or buddhists trying to preach their beliefs at people on a small forum like Tildes?

                I don't mind discussion of religions, but preaching and sermons? That seems a bit silly to me.

                And more frankly, I don't really want someone who thinks all good ultimately comes from a single western Christian god, and that humans are too ignorant to figure out right from wrong without the [un]willing influence of said god preaching their beliefs. It's an insulting idea imo.

                If that does happen, are people going to be allowed to call the poster out? Or will these people be forced into silence for not being nice enough in their replies to the poster, and/or told to just filter the topic?

                12 votes
                1. [2]
                  NoblePath
                  Link Parent
                  Well, if you find me preaching on Tildes, I would absolutely want everyone offended to share their feelings, and welcome all counterviews and questions and challenges. I am susceptible to changing...

                  Well, if you find me preaching on Tildes, I would absolutely want everyone offended to share their feelings, and welcome all counterviews and questions and challenges. I am susceptible to changing my mind, there are comments around tildes to demonstrate that, and I love the repartee I find here.

                  But what I think might be objected to here is not preaching but folks being subjected to moral jugdement. Many preachers do this, and many people (myself included) have suffered in communities that judged us harshly and punished us. In my mind, there is no place for that kind of behavior anywhere, except maybe some kind of fetish club.

                  Preaching for me is about spiritual affirmation. It's about realizaing the divine within us and around us. It's what morpheus provides to Neo. Gandalf to Frodo, etc. It's about understanding our truer purposes, and finding ways to treat each other and all creation better.

                  7 votes
                  1. Plik
                    Link Parent
                    That is reasonable enough. I would still be worried about people self censoring out of politeness. For example, on the rare occasion I do run into someone who wants to talk about God or their...

                    I would absolutely want everyone offended to share their feelings, and welcome all counterviews and questions and challenges. I am susceptible to changing my mind, there are comments around tildes to demonstrate that, and I love the repartee I find here.

                    That is reasonable enough. I would still be worried about people self censoring out of politeness. For example, on the rare occasion I do run into someone who wants to talk about God or their religion, it leaves me with an uncomfortable feeling similar to someone who believes in some bizarre conspiracy theory e.g. Hillary Clinton sacrificing babies and wearing their skin (actually happened once). I usually just end up nodding and smiling while trying to formulate an escape plan to get out of the conversation ASAP.

                    I think those sort of conversations are better reserved for more specific spaces, as usually neither side is really interested in being converted to the beliefs of the other.

                    Again, I think there is a huge difference between discussion and preaching. I would not consider anything in this thread the later, which is why I have participated in it so much.

                    6 votes
          2. ShamedSalmon
            Link Parent
            Oh I definitely agree with you on all points. I was intentionally being over-specific with my examples, so thank you for additionally capturing more general example groups to demonstrate the...

            Oh I definitely agree with you on all points. I was intentionally being over-specific with my examples, so thank you for additionally capturing more general example groups to demonstrate the problem from other angles.

            7 votes
          3. [14]
            updawg
            Link Parent
            I feel like Tildes users would be more accepting of those than any type of Christianity, to be honest. And I think it's pretty clear what kind of preaching would violate the asshole test. For...

            What about Islam? Asatru? Hinduism? Wicca? Many people might like to learn more about those faiths, but that isn't the same as being preached to or taught or proselytized to. Will folks feel as kindly to preaching when it isn't the umbrella faith they share, even if a different denomination.

            I feel like Tildes users would be more accepting of those than any type of Christianity, to be honest.

            And I think it's pretty clear what kind of preaching would violate the asshole test. For example, you can preach that abortion is wrong without being an asshole about it. And if you think that being in people's faces calling them names for killing babies isn't being an asshole, then, frankly, you should be doing that all the time if you really believe what you say, just like you would if we were out here killing children--which means that only being an asshole about it when preaching makes you a hypocritical asshole.

            Plus, Tildes has filters. For the people who don't understand filters, we could just require those types of posts to start with a disclaimer on how to filter them out.

            3 votes
            1. [5]
              DefinitelyNotAFae
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              As I said, I think people would like to learn about them and be less thrilled about being preached to about them. I think people would be much more hostile to someone preaching Islam, particularly...

              As I said, I think people would like to learn about them and be less thrilled about being preached to about them. I think people would be much more hostile to someone preaching Islam, particularly conservative Islam, here than Christianity. I think people can absolutely share their opinions about abortion and other things without being an asshole but "preaching" has a definition of persuading and convincing others, of delivering a sermon. In Christianity that preaching generally means things like "to unfold the meaning of a Scriptural text or theme to people so that they experience God's voice calling them to respond in faith and repentance."

              And one can preach that "We're all sinners, but those homosexuals are specifically sinners per Leviticus and Paul and therefore let me talk about how unnatural they are" in a very "polite" way. People used to preach using the Bible about the inferiority of other races (I mean, some people probably still do curse of Ham and all that) and that's still preaching often with a "tone" of care and concern even if the "message" is one we might find asshole-ish.

              I don't think this is a space for proselytizing. And if others comment their disagreement, or their distaste for the religion in response to this preaching, are they going to be told to filter it out instead of replying with their own perspective? I'm not personally inclined to filter out topics because then only certain voices will ever be heard on them. Sometimes others need to say that those words are hurtful or that the offer to "pray for healing" is actually offensive. I've been very active on religious forums in the past when I was figuring out my beliefs more actively and even there was a no-proselytizing zone.

              Am I the asshole for disagreeing with that sermon?

              And I think it really does open a door to Tildes being a place I don't want to be. That may just be a me problem. I don't think I'm the only one who would feel uncomfortable with it and I think that "just filter it out" isn't usually the response to things unless there's no other option (like it took quite a while before politics via ~society got a home because it was being actively discouraged. )

              Edited: just for an open parenthetical.

              16 votes
              1. Jerutix
                Link Parent
                As a now-former Christian minister (still absolutely a believer - we moved for my wife’s career, and I’m more in an admin role now… I was also ready to be done, but that’s a longer thing), I agree...

                As a now-former Christian minister (still absolutely a believer - we moved for my wife’s career, and I’m more in an admin role now… I was also ready to be done, but that’s a longer thing), I agree that I would not want that.

                If something like that is really desired, I’d almost want to frame it more like a book club, maybe in like a monthly thread where the sermons (or other types of writing) are top level comments that get discussed and picked apart.

                But yeah, it’s either got to be one voice of many, no voices at all, or somehow not framed in a proselytizing way.

                14 votes
              2. JCPhoenix
                Link Parent
                I don't think you're out of line at all here. I never had a bad experience with religion (grew up culturally Catholic, went through all the motions, but I've always been a solid atheist), yet the...

                I don't think you're out of line at all here. I never had a bad experience with religion (grew up culturally Catholic, went through all the motions, but I've always been a solid atheist), yet the idea of preaching in this community makes me very uncomfortable.

                That's not to say that people can't talk about religion and spirituality, philosophies of religion, history of it, current news going on within various religions, even their personal experiences with it. I don't agree with everything the OP said in their initial post, yet I found it in interesting nonetheless. I like hearing about people's experiences. It's a good example of what should be allowed here.

                But outright public preaching, to me, crosses that line. I suppose if someone is seeking spiritual care and guidance from fellow Tilderinos, that's one thing. As a community, we should want to support each other. But maybe take it to private channels. DMs, Discord, phone, etc.

                11 votes
              3. [2]
                updawg
                Link Parent
                I would certainly hope not. As always, filtering is a way to avoid topics you aren't interested in, not a way for people to request an echo chamber. I don't recall ever seeing people telling...

                And if others comment their disagreement, or their distaste for the religion in response to this preaching, are they going to be told to filter it out instead of replying with their own perspective?

                I would certainly hope not. As always, filtering is a way to avoid topics you aren't interested in, not a way for people to request an echo chamber. I don't recall ever seeing people telling gowestyoungman to filter out a topic when he disagrees with, like...everything most of us believe.

                Am I the asshole for disagreeing with that sermon?

                Would you be the asshole if someone said the equivalent in a non-religious context?

                Honestly, sermons and religious exegeses wouldn't be very different from many of the text posts already on this site. This post is pretty much already a sermon. Perhaps it's one paragraph away from being a complete one--a paragraph that is provided by one of the top comments that ties it all together with a nice lesson.

                You're acting like we'd be opening the floodgates to bring in Mullah Omar or Fred Phelps when it's much more likely that we'd just be encouraging people like OP to post more well-reasoned posts on their personal thoughts about concepts they've been pondering lately.

                (Also, I promise the em dash in this comment was entirely authentic and I couldn't think of how else to punctuate that sentence so that it would make sense)

                2 votes
                1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                  Link Parent
                  Sermons are explicitly religious marketing. They are designed to share religious truths with others. I do think there is a difference between sharing an individual story and being "invited" to...

                  Sermons are explicitly religious marketing. They are designed to share religious truths with others. I do think there is a difference between sharing an individual story and being "invited" to preach regularly.

                  Proselytizing creates a hostile environment for religious minorities. I don't want to normalize that, filter or not. And based on the comments on the survey and the history I've seen of how, for example, gender identity has been talked about here, no, I'm not confident that it's the same as sports fans.

                  12 votes
            2. [8]
              ShamedSalmon
              Link Parent
              I think you may be missing the fact that you are responding to a Tildes user who is voicing their preference that Tildes not be used to preach at them from "those" groups in addition to "any type...

              Will folks feel as kindly to preaching when it isn't the umbrella faith they share, even if a different denomination[?]

              I feel like Tildes users would be more accepting of those than any type of Christianity, to be honest.

              I think you may be missing the fact that you are responding to a Tildes user who is voicing their preference that Tildes not be used to preach at them from "those" groups in addition to "any type of Christianity".

              To restate for clarity, while you may feel like Tildes users would be more accepting of being preached at from members of Islam, Asatru, Hinduism, and Wicca, a real-life Tildes user is telling you that they would not be, which is an actual, demonstrated counter to your assumption. On the other hand, in addition to you, the person who started this comment chain would also like to see Christian preaching on Tildes, which (in lieu of any other input from them) appears to further counter such an assumption.

              Based on this, the implied train of thought that Tildes users might be more accepting of preaching from those other religions and therefore Christian preaching should be permissible, is problematic given that no one yet has demonstrated such a preference for other groups over Christianity.

              It is also actually not clear what kinds of preaching would pass the "asshole test." For example, one could preach that 'even a ten-year-old girl who commits infanticide through abortion is still loved by our god and will be forgiven if she confesses her sin.' Such a statement could be found to be fabulously offensive assholish. It is possible that you too might find such a statement to not be as soft as you envisioned above. However, a more conservative preacher may argue that such a statement is not intended as ill-willed "being in people's faces", but was intended to underline their god's love and forgiveness for all.

              Yet, people do take issue with being called sinners for making deep, personal, life-changing decisions such as abortion. For you and everyone else reading this, is the filter system really enough to keep preaching that could be interpreted as slanderous of other members within the realm of civility on Tildes?

              11 votes
              1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                Link Parent
                As an addendum, while I don't want to be preached at by any, many folks with religious trauma will react much more strongly to the religion(s) that were the source of the trauma. Their response to...

                As an addendum, while I don't want to be preached at by any, many folks with religious trauma will react much more strongly to the religion(s) that were the source of the trauma. Their response to Christianity may be stronger because Christians are the ones they happened to experience that with whether from growing up in a faith or because no pagan has called them an adulteress. That doesn't mean they necessarily want to be proselytized to by the Hare Krishna, they may just not have nearly as a strong of a reaction to it. Many people in the US in particular grow up surrounded by Christianity, most of us are culturally Christian even if we have zero faith, and I don't mean going to Church on the holidays, I mean assuming that Christmas is a state/federal holiday and that businesses are more likely to be closed on Sundays. (This is also why I think it's very likely we'd see opposition to the preaching of Islam, because it's culturally disdained by many Christian cultures which pending the survey results, I suspect includes most of the Tilderes here.)

                But my point is that stronger opposition to Christianity is generally about having received more harm from that faith for the individuals involved and I've rambled a bit.

                EDIT: Also "Christianity is especially good... for the West" is something I flag as very concerning from an "asshole test" standard.

                14 votes
              2. [6]
                updawg
                Link Parent
                Nope. Definitely not missing any of that. But you're definitely missing some of what I said because the logic you think I'm using doesn't make any sense. Yes. It is clear. If you would think it's...

                Nope. Definitely not missing any of that. But you're definitely missing some of what I said because the logic you think I'm using doesn't make any sense.

                It is also actually not clear what kinds of preaching would pass the "asshole test."

                Yes. It is clear. If you would think it's assholery if it was being said outside of preaching, then it's assholery when being said while preaching.

                For you and everyone else reading this, is the filter system really enough to keep preaching that could be interpreted as slanderous of other members within the realm of civility on Tildes?

                Yeah, it is. As with everything else on this site, it's up to the discretion of Deimos. Filters+Deimos make up the logic that is used for everything else posted here; I don't get why you think this one specific thing is any different. I could call someone a c-word for being a fan of a different sports team or for not supporting strong enough emissions regulations or for not supporting my right to run a business however I want. Why is it suddenly so different when people are doing the same exact thing with the topic being religion?

                2 votes
                1. [3]
                  DefinitelyNotAFae
                  Link Parent
                  I mean we already had a comment removed as malice. And I think there are some asshole implications in the language used about "The West" for example, in this post. Proselytizing is marketing, it's...

                  I mean we already had a comment removed as malice. And I think there are some asshole implications in the language used about "The West" for example, in this post.

                  Proselytizing is marketing, it's a recruitment drive. What is the difference between proselytizing and me starting to sell an MLM here? If that's the door you want to open, I hope you sign up for my downline too.

                  10 votes
                  1. [2]
                    updawg
                    Link Parent
                    You're the one bringing up proselytizing. Most preaching isn't proselytizing. I really don't think we would get many posts truly proselytizing. I would expect much more textual analysis and...

                    You're the one bringing up proselytizing. Most preaching isn't proselytizing. I really don't think we would get many posts truly proselytizing. I would expect much more textual analysis and philosophy with a religious bent.

                    I really just don't get why this is different from all the other times I've seen someone freak out about how awful something would be for the site, only to have people tell them how the quality of the user base, filtering, and Deimos mean that it would never be a problem.

                    4 votes
                    1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                      Link Parent
                      Preaching is proselytizing. That's a fundamental part of it, particularly within Christianity. It's included in the Cambridge definition, and the previous religious definition I provided was even...

                      Preaching is proselytizing. That's a fundamental part of it, particularly within Christianity. It's included in the Cambridge definition, and the previous religious definition I provided was even more explicit:

                      In Christianity that preaching generally means things like "to unfold the meaning of a Scriptural text or theme to people so that they experience God's voice calling them to respond in faith and repentance."

                      That's just one religious website's definition, but others are in the same vein.
                      Explaining the meaning of a scripture verse as I understand it or explaining how a particular faith interprets things are different than attempting to make my audience experience God's voice, to invoke faith and repentance in them.

                      As for why it's different, we just had a whole thread rejecting online images because it was antithetical to the Tildes experience. So, there are apparently some things worth drawing a line on. I'm saying this should be one of them. I'm neither the admin nor a deity so my opinion holds only as much sway as anyone else gives it.

                      In comparison to sports, people would probably be really annoyed if I made regular posts about how awesome the Chicago Sky are, regular stats about them and why you, you would be welcome into the Chicago Sky fandom. You'd probably not look twice at a single post, but it'd be annoying eventually. Probably people wouldn't invite me to keep posting it. I could talk about the joys of Pampered Chef and how great their products are and how deep and meaningful being a part of their team is for me, but again, people would probably be irritated at the marketing.

                      (To be clear, I do not engage in MLMs, I'll have to join one just to start getting my marketing on)

                      15 votes
                2. [2]
                  OBLIVIATER
                  Link Parent
                  Ironically some of the people here who are most against "preaching" tend to "preach" more than most anyone else on the site. Though perhaps not in the traditional religious sense.

                  Ironically some of the people here who are most against "preaching" tend to "preach" more than most anyone else on the site. Though perhaps not in the traditional religious sense.

                  8 votes
                  1. DefinitelyNotAFae
                    Link Parent
                    You can just talk to me directly instead of indirectly, same with anyone else. But despite you saying "some" I'm well aware I am the loudest person here at the moment. Except perhaps the person...

                    Ironically some of the people here who are most against "preaching" tend to "preach" more than most anyone else on the site. Though perhaps not in the traditional religious sense.

                    You can just talk to me directly instead of indirectly, same with anyone else. But despite you saying "some" I'm well aware I am the loudest person here at the moment. Except perhaps the person who was temp banned.

                    The religious sense is what I'm referring to being concerned with so I'm not sure it meets the definition of irony, but I'm open to hearing your thoughts on my posting anytime.

                    9 votes
        2. [6]
          NoblePath
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible . . . Edit: Too often I forget how certain jokes don't translate to text. This was a bumper sticker I saw on a car in my hometown. It is a belief many folks...

          If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible . . .

          Edit: Too often I forget how certain jokes don't translate to text.

          This was a bumper sticker I saw on a car in my hometown. It is a belief many folks hold, sadly.

          1 vote
          1. [5]
            ShamedSalmon
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            Oh interesting! When you allude that the KJV is the only true version of the bible, are you implying that the 1611 Jacobean-style Early-Modern English is most holy and authoritative, or the later...
            • Exemplary

            Oh interesting! When you allude that the KJV is the only true version of the bible, are you implying that the 1611 Jacobean-style Early-Modern English is most holy and authoritative, or the later post-vowel shifted Modern English of the 1769 edition that people use (and call the 1611) to this very day? What is the doctrinal basis for either edition's authority over the other? I have never received a good answer regarding this...

            What makes the KJV more authoritative, in your eyes, than the Textus Receptus (of which the KJV is based) or any of the other Greek texts?

            EDIT: Elsewhere, you also say, "I think some of the early texts were wrongfully excluded; apparently there some more women-positive texts out around the early first century." However, those texts are not in the KJV. How do you reconcile your belief that they were wrongly excluded from the canon with your belief that anything outside of the canon and format of the KJV is not authoritative?

            11 votes
            1. Jerutix
              Link Parent
              I think based on the ellipse and the parent post (if I lined them up right), that statement is tongue in cheek. We also make jokes like that frequently in my circles due to the, I guess, silliness...

              I think based on the ellipse and the parent post (if I lined them up right), that statement is tongue in cheek. We also make jokes like that frequently in my circles due to the, I guess, silliness of people (and whole congregations) literally believing that the KJV is the only true version of the Bible. Which is obviously ridiculous to us who know translation history and the simple fact that, you know, the Bible wasn’t originally written in English.

              6 votes
            2. [2]
              NoblePath
              Link Parent
              Sorry for the poor rendition of a joke. If we're going to get technical, if it ain't 1st centry aramaic and greek and coptic and possibly syriac, it ain't bible.

              Sorry for the poor rendition of a joke. If we're going to get technical, if it ain't 1st centry aramaic and greek and coptic and possibly syriac, it ain't bible.

              6 votes
              1. JCPhoenix
                Link Parent
                I think Tildes is one of those places where the '/s' might need to come into the play more often. Given how super serious this place sometimes is!

                I think Tildes is one of those places where the '/s' might need to come into the play more often. Given how super serious this place sometimes is!

                5 votes
            3. sparksbet
              Link Parent
              Even the fundamentalist Christian school I attended taught about how the KJV was commissioned by the government in order to exercise some control Biblical interpretation. They created a Bible with...

              Even the fundamentalist Christian school I attended taught about how the KJV was commissioned by the government in order to exercise some control Biblical interpretation. They created a Bible with no marginalia from the translators because marginalia from the earlier Geneva Bible were seen to undermine the monarchy and put God above the state in places (places, imo, where those things are indisputably present in the Biblical text), and they made translation choices, like avoiding the word "tyrant," to avoid implying anything negative about the king.

              Granted, that school used mostly NIV and ESV like a lot of fundies do, so it was relatively easy to criticize this version, especially when such criticism was primarily directed at the Church of England and the English monarchy. I'm sure there are motivations behind translation choices in the NIV and ESV that we were not taught.

              5 votes
      2. zestier
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        While I can agree that there would be conversations, I doubt they would be characterized as "great". My perception of forums in general is that people are likely to upvote what they agree with and...

        While I can agree that there would be conversations, I doubt they would be characterized as "great". My perception of forums in general is that people are likely to upvote what they agree with and comment in response to what they disagree with it. That behavior on its own could strongly weight those topics toward disagreement and as a result it seems likely to me that many of those threads would devolve in the direction of deconstruction threads.

        For evidence, just look at where the replies and votes lie in this one thread. I doubt that the Christians want to go into their regular preaching thread and feel ratioed by non-Christians. I also doubt that all the non-Christians would participate in those threads in a way that doesn't feel at least a little hostile toward Christianity. The best case scenario for such a recurring topic is probably that a lot of people filter it out, but that just doesn't feel like a healthy attitude for Tildes.

        4 votes
  4. [37]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [2]
      elight
      Link Parent
      I'm not sure that I've ever heard that quote. However, as a lapsed Jew now secular Buddhist, I find that I have the same outlook on my wife's family's Catholicism. Not making myself out to be some...

      I'm not sure that I've ever heard that quote. However, as a lapsed Jew now secular Buddhist, I find that I have the same outlook on my wife's family's Catholicism.

      Not making myself out to be some sort of perfect being yet I find that I live closer to Jesus than her family in some ways. I even challenged my father-in-law that his MAGA politics are at odds with his faith. Interestingly, he agreed and seemed confounded by that.

      Christianity, at least in America, seems to have little to do with Jesus' teachings, sadly.

      "I like your Christ but not your Christianity", indeed.

      9 votes
      1. NoblePath
        Link Parent
        So-called "Christian Nationalism" is really neither national (more racial) or Christian (most of their practices and symbols are pagan, actually). Bethel Music, a maga-jesus juggernaut out of...

        So-called "Christian Nationalism" is really neither national (more racial) or Christian (most of their practices and symbols are pagan, actually). Bethel Music, a maga-jesus juggernaut out of California, even went so far as to use a teutonic hart as their logo for a brief while.

        4 votes
    2. [7]
      chocobean
      Link Parent
      My own personal opinion is everything was going okay with Christianity until around the Great Schism (1054) where [opinion redacted]. But we have had the 70ish written books agreed upon already...

      My own personal opinion is everything was going okay with Christianity until around the Great Schism (1054) where [opinion redacted]. But we have had the 70ish written books agreed upon already for several hundred years already by that point, and a professed Nicean Creed (325) of statements agreed upon since forever. Things not explicitly in the creed was a bit more choose your own adventures for sure: there was a wide variety of paths to sainthood, both for lay people and clergy, domestics to monastics. [Controversial Opinion] Then things sharply declined when the west necessitated Reformation and its leaders refused to rejoin the Orthodox Church.

      4 votes
      1. skybrian
        Link Parent
        I'm slowly reading a history of the Eastern Roman empire and, after Constantine, much of the history seems to be of bitter theological disputes between bishops from different cities. It seems like...

        I'm slowly reading a history of the Eastern Roman empire and, after Constantine, much of the history seems to be of bitter theological disputes between bishops from different cities. It seems like disunity started very early. Religious tolerance hadn't been invented yet.

        7 votes
      2. [4]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. [3]
          chocobean
          Link Parent
          Someone once got mad at me for spoiling something from The Handmaid's Tale TV show >v< which is adapted from a book written during the cold war (1985) .... In my defense it's been enough time.......

          Someone once got mad at me for spoiling something from The Handmaid's Tale TV show >v< which is adapted from a book written during the cold war (1985) .... In my defense it's been enough time....

          Let me know what the book says about the Orthodox Church when you get there :)

          5 votes
          1. [3]
            Comment deleted by author
            Link Parent
            1. [2]
              chocobean
              Link Parent
              I'm sure it's a wonderful book :) it's okay we're kind of the secret cool kids club There's a podcast/book titled Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy if you're curious, which I would credit towards my...

              I'm sure it's a wonderful book :) it's okay we're kind of the secret cool kids club

              There's a podcast/book titled Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy if you're curious, which I would credit towards my conversion.

              1 vote
              1. [2]
                Comment deleted by author
                Link Parent
                1. chocobean
                  Link Parent
                  :'( may you nor I ever be in a position where we could screw up this badly, no matter how right we'd think we were and how many people were kissing our butts to say so..... I've done some pretty...

                  ordered a crusade that caused the deaths of between 300,000 and 1 million people

                  :'( may you nor I ever be in a position where we could screw up this badly, no matter how right we'd think we were and how many people were kissing our butts to say so..... I've done some pretty hurtful and self righteous things that I thought was oh so very important at the time....

                  :) I like St Paul's letters to the various Church communities. Without them we'd have fewer ideas of what folks were up to after Christ's resurrection. He speaks of himself as one "abnormally born" (I Cor 15:8) so he too might have a chuckle at your description. I'm also reminded of Chronicles of Naria, where Edmund didn't get any gifts from Father Christmas because he was busy betraying his siblings to the ice witch. St Paul didn't get to hang out with Jesus because he was too busy being the perfect religious zealot at the time.

                  2 votes
      3. [2]
        NoblePath
        Link Parent
        You're orthodox I take it? You guys have way better pictures. But we have Julian of Norwich ;-p Seriously, though, I'm not so sure I agree. A lot of the controversies prior to the Great Schism...

        You're orthodox I take it? You guys have way better pictures. But we have Julian of Norwich ;-p

        Seriously, though, I'm not so sure I agree. A lot of the controversies prior to the Great Schism seem largely pointless to me, and also, problematically, some of them were decided for secular expediency. And, as I said elsewhere, I think some of the early texts were wrongfully excluded; apparently there some more women-positive texts out around the early first century.

        2 votes
        1. chocobean
          Link Parent
          :p all of the controversies are "above my pay grade" as simple laity. I used to worry and cry and be heartbroken a lot about that kind of stuff when I was Protestant because somehow my eternal...

          :p most all of the controversies are "above my pay grade" as simple laity. I used to worry and cry and be heartbroken a lot about that kind of stuff when I was Protestant because somehow my eternal soul depends on being "biblically correct" on every major and minor doctrinal issue that I have to decide for myself AND being able to leave/find the "correct" church/ preacher. I got so tired of having to watch my new found church family get torn up every few years based on some unacceptable "held with closed fist" issue yet again....so many families and friendship circles broken for (my take) who cares issues .... "Everyone did what was right in their own eyes"

          I give up. I'll go to Liturgy, I'll partake of the Mysteries, I'll pray and keep up with charity and repent of my many failings, and that's it. If my priest is wrong that's his deal with The Boss.

          :) at least we still have the intertestament books, and reading the excluded ones isn't a sin yay. Met. Kallistos Ware spoke very highly of Lady Julian. (There's a paragraph here quoting the ancients, speaking of God the Mother and of Christ addressed maternally as well). And her eternal quote of "All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well" is one I have always treasured.

          4 votes
    3. [22]
      NoblePath
      Link Parent
      That book looks interesting, and I would agree with your restatement of the thesis. Theologically, we might call this "revelation" of God, but it could just as easily be some kind of evoloutionary...

      That book looks interesting, and I would agree with your restatement of the thesis. Theologically, we might call this "revelation" of God, but it could just as easily be some kind of evoloutionary process. I don't think it takes too deep of an observation to see it, however. Christian philosophy has serious staying power, especially at the level of politics and non-elite circles.

      Regarding your quote, my umbrage is that every group has good and bad subgroups and individuals. And every individual has good and bad parts, and the very best of us fall short, and the very worst are still redeemable.

      A better assessment in my view is what is the ideal, how attainable is the ideal, how workable are the mechanisms for attaining the ideal, and, in aggregate across history, how successfully has the ideal been made manifest?

      Of the majors, Buddha's not bad. But Buddha's love might be unconditional, but it is not affirmative. You have to work to get to Buddha. All you have to do for Christ's love is ask. Also, there's a lot going on in Buddhism that goes right over our head in the West, and I'm not 100% that if we fully understood it, we'd agree with it. Side note, they do have plenty of baddies, ask Pema Chodren why she distanced herself from Shambhala.

      I'll push back about the 'round 1000 mark. There was plenty of awful stuff before that (even in the Gospels, also there's Gospels and texts that were, imo, wrongfully excluded), and plenty of awesome stuff since.

      4 votes
      1. [21]
        ShamedSalmon
        Link Parent
        Is the requirement of asking not a condition of receiving that love? For it to be unconditional, should it not be offered regardless of whether one asks? Regardless, you seem to be...

        I'm speaking here of unconditional, affirmative love... All you have to do for Christ's love is ask.

        Is the requirement of asking not a condition of receiving that love? For it to be unconditional, should it not be offered regardless of whether one asks?

        Regardless, you seem to be misunderstanding Buddhism as being a redemptionist religion in the same vein as your Christian denomination, when it is not.

        One thing I am not so clear on: many people who live in the West are Buddhists. When you say "I'm not 100% that if we [the West] fully understood it, we'd agree with it," what group do you place Western Buddhists in? Are they either not considered Western in this case, or perhaps not authentically Buddhist?

        11 votes
        1. [20]
          NoblePath
          Link Parent
          First, western for me is both geographical and cultural. Lots of theses to write about this issue, I'm not sure I can summarize or if I even really know myself, but having been married to a...

          First, western for me is both geographical and cultural. Lots of theses to write about this issue, I'm not sure I can summarize or if I even really know myself, but having been married to a Japanese woman at one point I can say there are some pretty divergent ways of viewing the world.

          Second, based on conversations I have had with buddhists in Japan and from China, much Buddhism that could be said to be truly "Western" is not fully Buddhist. Of course, Buddhism has it's own vagaries and differences and subdivisions and conflicts and bad actors. I've studied under someone who studied under Thic Nhat Han, and could never truly sync up. Mindfulness practice is definitely beautiful though, and I practice daily meditatiion still, huge fan of Pema Chodren. At least my experience required some efforts and commitments before I would be considered "in."

          I'm not sure what you mean by "redemptive." My understanding is one of being called home.

          Regarding the asking, yes I suppose that's technically a condition. But it's on offer without even asking, so there you go.

          1. [19]
            ShamedSalmon
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            I think your outlook on Buddhism is, in the best light, kind of ignorant, and some might see such language as being a bit inconsiderate. Though, I am not saying that you are trying to be...

            I think your outlook on Buddhism is, in the best light, kind of ignorant, and some might see such language as being a bit inconsiderate. Though, I am not saying that you are trying to be dismissive, but let me invert your example of Buddhism into Christianity to show you what I mean:

            Based on conversations I have had with Christians in Canada and the U.S., much of Christianity that could be said to be truly "European" is not fully Christian. Of course, Christianity has it's own vagaries and differences and subdivisions and conflicts and bad actors. I've studied under priests who have studied under renowned Catholic bishops, and could never truly sync up. Liturgical practice is definitely beautiful though, and I practice daily litanies still, huge fan of Thomas Merton. However, at least in my experience, Christianity as a whole required some efforts and commitments before I would be considered "in" unlike my sect of Pure-Land Buddhism which doesn't require that (and which originated in China, spread to Japan, and is widely present in the West today).



            See also Redemption. When I wrote that comment, I had missed your statement of "I also don't think anyone's going to get damned to hell for all eternity... we'll all get [to heaven] eventually" which would likely place you in the universalist camp, correct?

            Also, no, I did not know that you were joking about the KJV; sorry about that. It is such a common position among vocal U.S. Protestants online that I generally take such a statement at face value. I'd be careful in narrowing your definition to first century textual copies though, as none exist and the oldest fragments of the New Testament are thought to be from the late second to early third century and onwards.

            EDIT: Spelling and clarity.

            10 votes
            1. [18]
              NoblePath
              Link Parent
              I mean, I certainly don’t find any of that inverse statement ignorant or offensive, and could see how that could be someone’s genuine perspective. In fact, it is the experience I would expect an...

              I mean, I certainly don’t find any of that inverse statement ignorant or offensive, and could see how that could be someone’s genuine perspective. In fact, it is the experience I would expect an eastern person to have approaching Christianity. This is not to say some won’t find their way through anyway. But I am not alone in my thought in this regard, even Jung shared it.

              My bigger point throughout this post however, is not that one way is right, or that multiple ways are incompatible, or anything like that. What I am saying is that western ideas of goodness are primarily Christian in origin, and that makes Christianty the best way to promote goodness in the west, regardless of whether God is real.

              Side note, seems like pure land buddhism might not be the best buddhism to counter the unconditional/affirmative thing, seeing as how it requires a fair bit of effort to make it to a pure land where it’s still not guaranteed you’ll meet a good bodhisattva.

              Edit: side note 2, choosing first century as the technical requirement is meant to be a subtle commentary on placing too much value on scripture.

              1 vote
              1. [5]
                Malle
                Link Parent
                Why would that follow? Even if "western ideas of goodness" originate from Christianity, they are far from encompassing all off Christianity, a concept which is in itself interpreted into so many...

                What I am saying is that western ideas of goodness are primarily Christian in origin, and that makes Christianty the best way to promote goodness in the west, regardless of whether God is real.

                Why would that follow?

                Even if "western ideas of goodness" originate from Christianity, they are far from encompassing all off Christianity, a concept which is in itself interpreted into so many different groupings. Why promote all that extra baggage? Why not be good just because the world is a better place by it?

                But maybe I'm not "western" enough to understand, up here in the Nordic countries?

                5 votes
                1. [2]
                  ShamedSalmon
                  Link Parent
                  To strengthen your point another way, Western ideas of badness would be primarily Christian in origin as well, which would also make Christianity the best way to promote badness in the West. We...

                  To strengthen your point another way, Western ideas of badness would be primarily Christian in origin as well, which would also make Christianity the best way to promote badness in the West.

                  We could also take OP's line of derivative logic further:

                  Western ideas of goodness are primarily Christian in origin; Christianity is primarily Jewish, Hellenist, and Pagan in origin; Judaism is primarily Zoroastrian, Canaanite, and Egyptian in origin, and that makes Polytheism the best way to promote goodness in the West.

                  3 votes
                  1. NoblePath
                    Link Parent
                    That's clever and I give you credit for it. It's also probably true in a purely academic sense. Theology is practical as well as theoretical, however. Making a difference today, in the here and...

                    That's clever and I give you credit for it. It's also probably true in a purely academic sense.

                    Theology is practical as well as theoretical, however. Making a difference today, in the here and now, I think requires working with that which is currently manifested.

                2. [2]
                  NoblePath
                  Link Parent
                  Perhaps you are confusing promoting goodness with promoting Christianity? All of Christianity is not Good. Christ is good, and to the extent I follow Christ I am doing good I reckon. But all of...

                  Perhaps you are confusing promoting goodness with promoting Christianity? All of Christianity is not Good. Christ is good, and to the extent I follow Christ I am doing good I reckon. But all of Christianity, name notwithstanding, is not following Christ all the time, in big and small ways.

                  1. Malle
                    Link Parent
                    No, I am not confusing the two. Are you sure you aren't? After all, I don't bring religion or faith into it at all; I just try to do good as I see it when I can, through things like compassion,...

                    No, I am not confusing the two. Are you sure you aren't? After all, I don't bring religion or faith into it at all; I just try to do good as I see it when I can, through things like compassion, acceptance, and support.

                    I'd also still like an answer to the first question in my previous reply. Or was that the answer? That you personally need the guidance Christianity provides to do good, and you then extend that to apply to the entire western world?

                    3 votes
              2. [12]
                ShamedSalmon
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                There are 44 million Chinese Christians; 6 million of them are Catholic. There are 28 million Indian Christians; 10 million of them are Catholic. There are 29 million Indonesian Christians; 9...
                • Exemplary

                There are 44 million Chinese Christians; 6 million of them are Catholic. There are 28 million Indian Christians; 10 million of them are Catholic. There are 29 million Indonesian Christians; 9 million of them are Catholic. There are 14 million South Korean Christians; 6 million of them are Catholic. When you say, "it is the experience I would expect an eastern person to have approaching Christianity", what is it about "Eastern" intelligence that makes you feel that they are less than capable of understanding their own Christian faiths in the same manner as the group you label Western?

                To be clear, when you say "Jung," do you mean Carl Gustav Jung, who said:

                "The Catholic Church arranges the codification of memories and the lessons of history so much better. The conservation of so much classical paganism is of inestimable value. Therefore the Catholic is the Christian Church par excellence."

                Letters, vol. 1

                and

                "The God of words is cold and dead and shines from afar like the moon, mysteriously and inaccessibly: Let the word return to its creator, to man, and thus the word will be heightened in man."

                The Red Book

                and

                "The philosophy of the East, although so vastly different from ours, could be an inestimable
                treasure for us too; but, in order to possess it, we must first earn it."

                Psychology and Religion: West and East

                and

                "The goal in psychotherapy is exactly the same as in Buddhism."

                Jung-Hisamatsu Conversation

                and

                "What is so special about Christ, that he should be the motivational force? Why not another model–Paul, or Buddha, or Confucius, or Zoroaster? ...If we can view Christ as a human being, then it makes absolutely no sense to regard him as, in any way, a compelling model for our actions."

                The Zofingia Lectures

                and

                "Christ, like Buddha, is an embodiment of the self, but in an altogether different sense. Both stood for an overcoming of the world: Buddha out of rational insight; Christ as a foredoomed sacrifice. In Christianity more is suffered, in Buddhism more is seen and done. Both paths are right, but in the Indian sense, Buddha is the more complete human being."

                Memories, Dreams, and Reflections

                that Jung? Because he did not share in your regard, but held high esteem for both Catholicism and Buddhism, even though he did not espouse them as his own religion.



                As for your side note, I am puzzled that you are presenting yourself as well educated on Pure-Land. If you are, then you would no doubt be familiar with the Larger Sutra of Immeasurable Life, the central text within that sect, in which Amitabha Buddha promises to his followers,

                If I should attain Buddhahood, yet sentient beings of the ten directions who aspire to be reborn in my land with wholehearted faith and joy would not be reborn there, even if they have but ten thoughts of my name, may I not attain perfect enlightenment.

                You say that you are not arguing that one way is right, nor that multiple ways are incompatible, in the same post where you allude that your incorrect understandings of Buddhism make it lesser than Christianity for not aligning with your unorthodox take on Christian salvation theory. If you mean to double down that there is only one Eastern culture and one Western culture, and that you feel your claims, as you have written them, about these billions of people have a large bit of accuracy, then I would say that your definition of goodness is fundamentally flawed for its championing of inconsideration and unkindness towards others.

                If, however, you find yourself speaking too rashly, that you don't mean to speak for, judge, or gloss over such large and diverse groups of people in the manner that your arrangement of words have been doing, then I would say that you are at the beginning of a good road, but can greatly benefit from incorporating more clarity and accuracy in your writing style.

                Please try to understand the genuineness of my confusion here, because thus far, I simply cannot tell whether you are a doctrinally mixed Christian Nationalist who doesn't want to be labelled as such, or a progressive who leans neo-gnostic with a strong need to clarify what they initially say. Your writing style comes across as talking down about these other groups while wanting to leverage the infrastructure of Christianity in your area for some ambiguous definition of good. Yet I just can't tell from your word choice and tone whether your definition of good is some form of racial exceptionalism or something else entirely. Again, I'm not trying to indict you, but based on the way you speak about others, I genuinely do not understand what your definition of good is, aside from its bearing some sort of relation to Protestantism.

                EDIT: misspellings, clarified questions. Updated est. # of Chinese Christians from 2018 to 2023.

                8 votes
                1. [11]
                  NoblePath
                  Link Parent
                  Well, first, I don't think I've said anything about intelligence anywhere in this post. I'll say now that I think if we can distinguish between them at all, the balance would favor the east on...

                  Well, first, I don't think I've said anything about intelligence anywhere in this post. I'll say now that I think if we can distinguish between them at all, the balance would favor the east on many axes of intelligence, especially aesthetics and harmony with the natural world. I don't move away from Eastern ways of thinking because they are inadequate, but because they are too difficult for my Western brain.

                  I will defer to your superior catalog of Jung, however, I don't draw the same meaning from the quotes you provide that you do. In particular this quote, which seems the most salient to our discussion,

                  "The philosophy of the East, although so vastly different from ours, could be an inestimable
                  treasure for us too; but, in order to possess it, we must first earn it."

                  Is one I would rely on to promote my idea. I have not said there is anything wrong or inferior about anything Eastern, only that it is inaccessible. Jung disagrees with me that it is _in_accessible, and he's probably right. But most folks don't have the time or energy to "earn it." Therefore, it appears to me, the best way to promote Goodness int he western world is with western ideas, which, in my estimation as far as virtue is concerned, are Christian values. I would welcome some exposition on how this or those other quotes counter this idea; I don't see it.

                  Your quote from the Buddha doesn't seem to address my concern. What I read there is that no one's enlightenment can be complete until all are enlightened, a sentiment I share and that has a Christian heritage as well, the word is apokatastasis.

                  I will take your claims about my writing to heart. It's alarming that someone could read my comments and conclude any kind of racism. I do think there are differences East to West, and I think some Eastern approaches to some things (ironically, especially social inclusion) are problematic in some ways. But I have tried to localize any judgements of "better or worse" to my particular cultural and geographical location.

                  I'll further add, just to make the record crystal clear, East and West is for me primarily a mental paradigm, historically centered geographically in Europe-America. It has nothing to do with race, which I make out to be a social, rather than foundational, construct. I think genetics play no role in adoption of the paradigm, only socio-cultural history and education.

                  2 votes
                  1. [10]
                    ShamedSalmon
                    (edited )
                    Link Parent
                    Which is not what the quote says. Let's look at it again: Let's break it down. According to Amitabha's followers, he did indeed attain enlightenment and Buddhahood. The sect of Pure-Land Buddhism...

                    What I read there is that no one's enlightenment can be complete until all are enlightened

                    Which is not what the quote says. Let's look at it again:

                    If I should attain Buddhahood, yet sentient beings of the ten directions who aspire to be reborn in my land with wholehearted faith and joy would not be reborn there, even if they have but ten thoughts of my name, may I not attain perfect enlightenment.

                    Let's break it down.

                    If I, [being Amitabha], should attain Buddhahood, yet [people of the world] who aspire to be reborn in my land... would not be reborn there... [then] may I, [being Amitabha], not attain perfect enlightenment. [Entry would only require] thoughts of my name.

                    According to Amitabha's followers, he did indeed attain enlightenment and Buddhahood. The sect of Pure-Land Buddhism is known worldwide for its universalist branches, whether you are aware of them or not. Under this theology, people aren't even required to ask for entry; unlike general Christianity (whether it's a true Scotsman or not), there's no redemption necessary. Entry into the Pure-Land is, to use your words, on offer without even asking, so there you go. And again, they make no attempts to hide their universalist outlook and their religious materials are freely available for people to look up.



                    Also, you're not addressing the crux of the issue I have presented: there are millions of people who live in the East and practice a form of Western Christianity, but you have painted them as all being "Eastern thinkers." There are millions of people in the West who practice forms of Eastern religion, but you have painted them all as inauthentically practicing Westerners. (You said Western Buddhists didn't count based on what you gleaned from your ex and a guy who knows a famous teacher; I said turn that around on Western analogues; you said yeah, maybe Europe doesn't have authentic Christians and Jung agrees, which prompted the responses from myself and others.) To use a quote of yours to address the more general aspect of this concern:

                    From where I can see, it is Christian virtue that is most understood by most people as good. I futher believe that Christian virtue--generosity, temperence, altruism chief among them--are really good values

                    These aren't Christian virtues; they're just virtues. Virtues that every culture holds. It's you who places limits on their applications. You even admitted elsewhere that you have a narrow understanding of history. Furthermore, in your opening, you stated that Western values were based on neo-platonic and Christian ideals, but have since then completely ignored the contributions of Greek society to both Christian and more general Western thought. Paradoxically, you seem to consider that as not pushing Christianity. Here are some more quotes from you:

                    • the best way to promote Goodness int he western world is with western ideas, which, in my estimation as far as virtue is concerned, are Christian values.

                    • Perhaps you are confusing promoting goodness with promoting Christianity? All of Christianity is not Good. Christ is good

                    • What I think is that Western ideals are very much Christian ideals.

                    • A better way to look at the issue is how helpful is the religion (or social group or whatever) at helping us reach our better nature? I think Christianity has done an OK job at promoting a virtuous society.

                    • if I can adequately define "true Christians," then I can certainly distinguish between groups that are similarly identified but not equally qualified.

                    • in my estimation, for better or worse, America is a Christian nation

                    • Christian philosophy has serious staying power, especially at the level of politics and non-elite circles.

                    If you like the way that looks, you probably still do not understand how people are reading you. If you don't like the way that looks, you might be seeing how people are reading you. When the argument seems like it suits you, you say that good Western values are actually Christian values. But when others point out that many Christian values are not good, you shift the argument and say that good Western values are really more Christ-like, and those who would consider themselves Christ-like do good. But when people point out that those who consider themselves as Christ-like don't do good, you shift the argument and say that the people you don't like are not Christians and you mean good in the sense of Western values. Then the cycle repeats.

                    Aside from the circular logic, to clarify my and others' concerns, a lot of your rhetoric comes across as American Evangelical with certain traits of its grassroots Nationalism. This could all be a misunderstanding, of course, but when your writing style however unwittingly illustrates that America = the West, that the West = good, that goodness = Christianity/Christ-likeness, it throws up red flags. I acknowledge your saying that you have tried to localize any judgements of "better or worse" to your particular cultural and geographical location, but that doesn't come across when you oversimplify the world into East vs. West and make unscholarly statements about religions and cultures that you simultaneously admit to not understanding well from your viewpoint.

                    I don't really have anything else to add, I suppose, except that I do appreciate you taking all of our questions about your writing expression style to heart and I do hope that we're just misunderstanding you. I am sorry if we are.

                    EDIT: bullet points to thwart the quote formatting
                    EDIT: lmao, fixed quote; shameful fish...

                    7 votes
                    1. [2]
                      sparksbet
                      Link Parent
                      Feel free to mark this comment as off-topic to lower it down once OP replies, but fwiw, one of the quotes in that list (the one about antisemitism) is mine from a comment replying to OP.

                      Feel free to mark this comment as off-topic to lower it down once OP replies, but fwiw, one of the quotes in that list (the one about antisemitism) is mine from a comment replying to OP.

                      3 votes
                      1. ShamedSalmon
                        Link Parent
                        Oof, you are so right! Sorry about that to both you and OP. Using the wrong quote definitely detracts from the point I was making. I went ahead and fixed it. Thanks so much!

                        Oof, you are so right! Sorry about that to both you and OP. Using the wrong quote definitely detracts from the point I was making. I went ahead and fixed it. Thanks so much!

                        5 votes
                    2. [7]
                      NoblePath
                      Link Parent
                      I disagree with your provided interpolations of the quoted passage. You are significantly changing the meaning of the passage as written. I also note the original passage describes that the...

                      I disagree with your provided interpolations of the quoted passage. You are significantly changing the meaning of the passage as written. I also note the original passage describes that the Buddha's followers have "wholehearted faith and joy," which reads like a qualification to me.

                      But I will defer to your firm commitment and concede that as respresented by you, Pure-Land Buddhism requires nothing of its adherents to become members.

                      Regarding your bigger point, I have thinking to do. I am not ultimately responsible for the meaning people take from my work. but I don't presently understand how anyone could find what I've said to indicate that I believe "western" ways are better than "eastern" ways, especially when viewing the entire corpus. And not everyone who disagrees with my pursuit agrees with you that I"m bordering on some kind of christina nationalism. For example, when discussing my recent turn with a dear friend who is a linguisitics professor at a leading university, religious trauma survivor, and avowed atheist, I share my notion that America is a Christian nation to which she wholeheartedly agreed. Like you, she wished it were otherwise. Unlike you, she understood that a virtuous Christian point of view has significant value in making the world better. She certainly has no notions that I might be a threat to universalism or inclusion, otherwise she'd never let her kids near me. But she knows me more intimately than anyone on tildes.

                      I'll add, too, that one the most influential movements toward justice in recent memory was entirely Christian based. Dr. King was Reverend King first, a vocal believer and powerful preacher. We've also seen how horrible things can be when leaders disavow Christianity. The National Socialist Workers Party and late stage capitalist oligarchies are all decidedly anti-theist movements.

                      I'll also pose the question, what alternatives have reigned in human propensity for evil at the national level and above? Buddhism did little to prevent the horrific atrocities of Imperial Japan, Best Korea, or CCP. The Indian Caste system is second to none and Mumbai can barely breathe.

                      Ultimately, though, if I'm persuading vast swaths of people, maybe I'm doing it wrong? Christ was controversial and despied by zealots and intellectuals alike, and so to follow Christs is to presumably do the same.

                      As a side note, here is the Jungian quote which led me to believe he and I were in alignment:

                      The West, … with its bad habit of wanting to believe on the one hand, and its highly developed scientific and philosophical critique on the other, finds itself in a real dilemma. Either it falls into the trap of faith and swallows concepts like prana, atman, chakra, samadhi, etc., without giving them a thought, or its scientific critique repudiates them one and all as “pure mysticism.” The split in the Western mind therefore makes it impossible at the outset for the intentions of yoga to be realized in any adequate way.

                      I believe this is from Collected Works. He was speaking directly of yoga and the chakras, which is distinct from Buddhism. I don't have sufficient insight as to whether Jung would have agreed this limitation applies equivalently to buddhism, so I'll retract the statement.

                      1. [3]
                        phoenixrises
                        Link Parent
                        You're very conveniently forgetting that this "western excellence" mindset is also a huge reason why MLK had to fight for this justice you speak of. Using the Bible to literally subjugate a race...

                        I'll add, too, that one the most influential movements toward justice in recent memory was entirely Christian based. Dr. King was Reverend King first, a vocal believer and powerful preacher. We've also seen how horrible things can be when leaders disavow Christianity. The National Socialist Workers Party and late stage capitalist oligarchies are all decidedly anti-theist movements.

                        I'll also pose the question, what alternatives have reigned in human propensity for evil at the national level and above? Buddhism did little to prevent the horrific atrocities of Imperial Japan, Best Korea, or CCP. The Indian Caste system is second to none and Mumbai can barely breathe.

                        You're very conveniently forgetting that this "western excellence" mindset is also a huge reason why MLK had to fight for this justice you speak of. Using the Bible to literally subjugate a race of people isn't exactly the a great example. Even in modern times using the name of Jesus to try and subjugate women with anti choice rhetoric, even within a post capitalism oligarchy doesn't necessarily bode well for your arguments.

                        I'm sorry but even with your anecdotes about people who know you it's really hard not to read your extremely cherry picked examples without thinking racism on some level.

                        4 votes
                        1. [2]
                          NoblePath
                          Link Parent
                          I don’t claim “western excellence,” my claim is that Christ is good, and that what is excellent in western culture at least from a “goodness” perspective is of Christian origin. But what of my...

                          I don’t claim “western excellence,” my claim is that Christ is good, and that what is excellent in western culture at least from a “goodness” perspective is of Christian origin.

                          But what of my question, what paradigm has done better?

                          1. phoenixrises
                            Link Parent
                            u/ShamedSalmon already addresses this in an earlier comment: So I'm still going to defer to them (see how this is a bunch of circular logic?) I literally could not care less what "paradigm" does...

                            u/ShamedSalmon already addresses this in an earlier comment:

                            If you like the way that looks, you probably still do not understand how people are reading you. If you don't like the way that looks, you might be seeing how people are reading you. When the argument seems like it suits you, you say that good Western values are actually Christian values. But when others point out that many Christian values are not good, you shift the argument and say that good Western values are really more Christ-like, and those who would consider themselves Christ-like do good. But when people point out that those who consider themselves as Christ-like don't do good, you shift the argument and say that the people you don't like are not Christians and you mean good in the sense of Western values. Then the cycle repeats.

                            So I'm still going to defer to them (see how this is a bunch of circular logic?)

                            I literally could not care less what "paradigm" does better because it does not matter, and it doesn't seem to matter to you either. The worst part about Christianity in my opinion is that anyone can say anything and you can kinda support it in any way because none of the actual text actually matters.

                            3 votes
                      2. [3]
                        ShamedSalmon
                        (edited )
                        Link Parent
                        It seems like you are struggling with comprehension of these quotes, and if I had to guess, it is likely because you are not reading the source texts from which these quotes are taken. For...

                        It seems like you are struggling with comprehension of these quotes, and if I had to guess, it is likely because you are not reading the source texts from which these quotes are taken. For example, Collected Works is not a single book, but a volumization of all of Jung's books, essays, and letters. The quote you provided comes from Psychology and Religion: West and East (which is indexed as Volume 11 in Collected Works), specifically chapter 7, titled Yoga and the West. Here is the full paragraph with your cited passage in bold:

                        In the East, where these ideas and practices originated, and where an uninterrupted tradition extending over some four thousand years has created the necessary spiritual conditions, yoga is, as I can readily believe, the perfect and appropriate method of fusing body and mind together so that they form a unity that can hardly be doubted. They thus create a psychological disposition which makes possible intuitions that transcend consciousness. The Indian mentality has no difficulty in operating intelligently with a concept like prana. The West, on the contrary, with its bad habit of wanting to believe on the one hand, and its highly developed scientific and philosophical critique on the other, finds itself in a real dilemma. Either it falls into the trap of faith and swallows concepts like prana, atman, chakra, samadhi, etc., without giving them a thought, or its scientific critique repudiates them one and all as "pure mysticism." The split in the Western mind therefore makes it impossible at the outset for the intentions of yoga to be realized in any adequate way. It becomes either a strictly religious matter, or else a kind of training like Pelmanism, breath-control, eurhythmics, etc., and not a trace is to be found of the unity and wholeness of nature which is characteristic of yoga. The Indian can forget neither the body nor the mind, while the European is always forgetting either the one or the other. With this capacity to forget he has, for the time being, conquered the world. Not so the Indian. He not only knows his own nature, but he knows also how much he himself is nature. The European, on the other hand, has a science of nature and knows astonishingly little of his own nature, the nature within him. For the Indian, it comes as a blessing to know of a method which helps him to control the supreme power of nature within and without. For the European, it is sheer poison to suppress his nature, which is warped enough as it is, and to make out of it a willing robot.

                        I am not sure what you mean when you refer to the passage with the words, "this limitation", but Jung did not find so-called Eastern ideas to be incomprehensible. Rather, he thoroughly praised cultural yoga while denigrating the tendency of Western movements to dilute it into something more marketable. From his point of view, Westerners have lost sight of their own human natures, and he likened this blindness to a poison that leads to general destruction. If you are not up for reading the entire book, this is still a really good chapter on the value of yogic practices and the ways that they were now informing Jung's insights on psychology.

                        I would also add that Jung had unique and first-hand experience with the ways that Christianity has not succeeded in reigning in the human propensity for evil to any large degree. It's part of why he felt that psychoanalysis was the beginning of a field of work that would ultimately succeed what he also felt were the antiquated uses of religion, and thus potentially resolve the dichotomy at present between science and religion.

                        I think @phoenixrises and @Malle adequately cover the rest of the points, so I'll defer to them.

                        EDIT: Spelling correction.

                        2 votes
                        1. [2]
                          NoblePath
                          Link Parent
                          Maybe, but this conclusion seems pretty plain and decisive: How would you propose we apply buddhism in America today to reign in the worst of human behavior? Is there another better way? Where...

                          It seems like you are struggling with comprehension of these quotes

                          Maybe, but this conclusion seems pretty plain and decisive:

                          The split in the Western mind therefore makes it impossible at the outset for the intentions of yoga to be realized in any adequate way

                          How would you propose we apply buddhism in America today to reign in the worst of human behavior? Is there another better way? Where would you say Dr. King’s ideals came from? Are his aligned with western ideals of goodness in your opinion?

                          1. ShamedSalmon
                            Link Parent
                            Decisive of what, exactly? Not once in this whole chapter does Jung conclude that healing the split in the Western mind is itself objectively impossible. As you reread the paragraph, what you can...

                            Maybe, but this conclusion seems pretty plain and decisive:

                            Decisive of what, exactly? Not once in this whole chapter does Jung conclude that healing the split in the Western mind is itself objectively impossible. As you reread the paragraph, what you can see is that he is saying that grasping at the limits of Western religion and science, as they are currently implemented, are what makes deeper understandings of the self impossible to one who would not shirk them. You can read that to mean that your personal flavor of Christianity is therefore the universal solution if you like, or you can consider the point that Jung is making about psychoanalysis throughout the rest of the book.

                            If that isolated sentence were some sort of conclusion, it wouldn't be placed in the middle of the paragraph and followed up with further explanatory sentences. If Jung felt, as you allege, that the Western mind could not be made capable of understanding other ideas, he would not have been able to understand or explain them himself, nor would he have bothered to write half a book and more about them. Again, this is something you can make more understandable for yourself by reading the source text.

                            As to your question about which established religions should be used to socio-politically control people, whether good or bad, I would reiterate that you should consider digging deeper into Jung.

                            3 votes
    4. [5]
      DefinitelyNotAFae
      Link Parent
      (FYI the Gandhi quote is likely apocryphal, it has no source and the nearest sourced quote is different and also likely not real. It's likely made up. The sentiment is useful, just not the...

      (FYI the Gandhi quote is likely apocryphal, it has no source and the nearest sourced quote is different and also likely not real. It's likely made up. The sentiment is useful, just not the attribution)

      11 votes
      1. [4]
        cfabbro
        Link Parent
        https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Disputed

        https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Disputed

        I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time.

        • As quoted by William Rees-Mogg in The Times [London] (4 April 2005) {not found}. Gandhi here makes reference to a statement of Jesus: “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Luke 16:13); also partly quoted in Christianity in the Crosshairs: Real Life Solutions Discovered in the Line of Fire (2004, p. 74 books.google) by Bill Wilson.
        • A variation is found in Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal & Gandhi Research Foundation's website mkgandhi.org. Christian missionary E. Stanley Jones, who spent much time with Gandhi in India, is said to have askedː “Mr Gandhi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is it that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?". To this, Gandhi is said to have repliedː “Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It is just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ”. Jones would write a book called "Mahatma Gandhi: An Interpretation" (1948), where he included excerpts of his personal correspondance with Gandhi, but he did not include this conversation.
        • No further sources for Gandhi have been yet found; but a similar quote is attributed to Bara Dadaː "Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians -- you are not like him." ([Jones, E. Stanley]. The Christ of the Indian Road, New York: The Abingdon Press, 1925, page 121.)
        4 votes
        1. [3]
          DefinitelyNotAFae
          Link Parent
          Just providing a citation or disagreeing? Agreeing? Sorry just the block quote doesn't give me context.

          Just providing a citation or disagreeing? Agreeing? Sorry just the block quote doesn't give me context.

          4 votes
          1. [2]
            cfabbro
            Link Parent
            Just providing some citations. I didn't realize the quote was disputed so looked it up for myself and thought others would appreciate seeing more info about it too in case they were similarly...

            Just providing some citations. I didn't realize the quote was disputed so looked it up for myself and thought others would appreciate seeing more info about it too in case they were similarly curious. :)

            8 votes
            1. DefinitelyNotAFae
              Link Parent
              Thanks, sorry as a reply I didn't have vibes :)

              Thanks, sorry as a reply I didn't have vibes :)

              4 votes
  5. [2]
    karim
    Link
    I say yay for more talk about religion on tildes. I've also been thinking about writing about my own experiences with religion, be it critical or supportive, and this thread left me with the...

    I say yay for more talk about religion on tildes. I've also been thinking about writing about my own experiences with religion, be it critical or supportive, and this thread left me with the impression that tildes might not be opposed to such thing, unlike the majority of online English-Dominated platforms which all seem to be filled with unconditional hate for religions, with no room for good-faith discussion.

    7 votes
    1. Plik
      Link Parent
      I think most people here are ok with discussion, but probably not preaching. I enjoyed reading OP's...OP, even though I completely disagree with all of their key points.

      I think most people here are ok with discussion, but probably not preaching. I enjoyed reading OP's...OP, even though I completely disagree with all of their key points.

      16 votes
  6. [2]
    entitled-entilde
    Link
    Just as a warning, the job of “preacher” / pastor / priest / etc is not to preach. It is to bear people’s shit. As you know, churches are full of flawed and needy people. The guy who gives a...

    The answer in my mind was immediately, “I want to preach.”

    Just as a warning, the job of “preacher” / pastor / priest / etc is not to preach. It is to bear people’s shit. As you know, churches are full of flawed and needy people. The guy who gives a sermon every Sunday gets to know it all in detail, and is expected to bear and fix it. The main qualification for such a person is emotional capacity, not oratory skills.

    If that’s what you want professionally, that’s great. But from reading your post, it seemed more like your passion was for engaging with ideas. So consider some related careers during school: teacher, author, editor, etc!

    5 votes
    1. NoblePath
      Link Parent
      I'm taking a swing at distinguishing between preaching and pastoring, which includes everything you say. Around my school we call it public theology. As it happens, I am skillful one on one in...

      I'm taking a swing at distinguishing between preaching and pastoring, which includes everything you say. Around my school we call it public theology.

      As it happens, I am skillful one on one in bringing people some peace and joy, however that is not my hearts desire.

      4 votes
  7. tomf
    Link
    You might like The Idolatry of God: Breaking Our Addiction to Certainty and Satisfaction by Peter Rollins.

    You might like The Idolatry of God: Breaking Our Addiction to Certainty and Satisfaction by Peter Rollins.

    2 votes
  8. Comment removed by site admin
    Link