Critiques/Aberrations of Religion

[Cerin]

There is some relationship between the nature of our belief and ... the kind of lunatic for whom we'll have to apologize later.

Yes, I agree with this. The lunatic gets an idea (a wrong idea) from the belief.

you are presuming that the recipient of the belief system has understood perfectly what their god intended. I think rather that the divine being can be perfect and still be misunderstood by the imperfect receiver of the message.

I'm not meaning to disagree with this. That's what I've been trying to say.

Though we may be able to see a link between the message and the misconstruance by the imperfect receiver, nevertheless the cause of the trouble isn't the message, but the imperfect receiver. Or in other words, a good message can be turned to bad by someone of ill intent or understanding.

Cerin, I have the same problem with this that I do with the saying "Guns don't kill people, people do." Well yeah, but people use guns to kill people. Similarly, people use (or, more properly, abuse) particular belief systems as well.

Exactly. The fault is with the wrong use of the gun (unless you believe the gun itself is inherently evil), and with the wrong interpretation of the belief (unless you believe the belief itself is inherently evil).

[Jnyusa]

Cerin, I see now what you're saying. Yes, I agree.

jn

[Teremia]

I certainly don't think belief is inherently evil, but on my darker days I suspect that certainty that one's beliefs are the truest truth may have evil as a predictable side-effect.

Ideology and love are not so very compatible: love demands that ideology bend; ideology (or strict principle) too often requires the sacrifice of love.

[Primula Baggins]

Certainly a great deal of evil is done by people who are certain that what they believe is the only truth.

It doesn't follow from that, though, that only people without that certainty can be good.

I mean, the overwhelming majority of serial killers are men, and yet I sleep in a house with three men in it without a care in the world.

[Cerin]

I certainly don't think belief is inherently evil, but on my darker days I suspect that certainty that one's beliefs are the truest truth may have evil as a predictable side-effect.

This consigns me to being evil, so I have to good naturedly object.

I think it would depend on what that certainty led one to think and do (and so, it would depend on the nature of the 'truth' and the nature of a person's understanding of it, as well as on the nature of the person him or herself).

[narya]

Most of us know what love is all about. Show love always, and you won't stray far from the mark.

While I agree with you that Love is one of the main points of Christ's teachings, and that early on it was said "you will know Christians by their love", what does this say for the people who are not professed to be Christians? Is it a loving thing to corner the market on love and thereby suggest that Jews, Atheists and Heathens are closet Christians or are "far from the mark" when it comes to love?

I see "Christianity" as a set of beliefs that evolves over time. The Christianity of AD 70 is much different than the set of beliefs labeled Christianity in later centuries. If we all agreed what "Christianity" is, we wouldn't have so many sects all professing to be "it".

"Democracy" is a similar conundrum. It stands for the belief system of the ancient Greeks (the small percentage of ethnic Greek males who could vote), and the white gentlemen in 1850s US South, and the Democratic Peoples Republic of China. Much good and much nastiness has been done in the name of Democracy, IMHO.

[Primula Baggins]

I've never heard it proposed that only Christians can love. I don't see how Christians could "corner the market" on it, any more than they could corner the market on breathing or walking upright. Loving is a pan-human trait. Christianity just emphasizes its importance.

[Ethel]

I've never heard it proposed that only Christians can love. I don't see how Christians could "corner the market" on it, any more than they could corner the market on breathing or walking upright. Loving is a pan-human trait. Christianity just emphasizes its importance.

It does, and I know a great many loving Christians. Christians do great good in the world. Many of them really do visit the sick, feed the hungry, care for the destitute, visit those in prison... all those things Jesus told us we must do, because "whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me." (And this is one of the reasons I sw00n for Jesus of Nazareth, despite being more or less a heathen. Er... I hope that wasn't offensive. It wasn't meant to be.)


I do not wish to quarrel with my much-admired Christian friends, as I did in the Hell thread. It upset people to no purpose and I felt very badly afterwards. But maybe I can try to calmly explain. Here is where I get confused:

Christianity is Christ.

Show love always, and you won't stray far from the mark.

Those things are surely not mutually exclusive, but is there a place for those who show love, but do not believe? Part of the reason I get so overboard about this stuff is... about a year and a half ago, one of the people I loved best, died. He was only 46, and those who loved him were devastated. He was one of those people - we all know one or two - whose spirit simply shone. Who made people who knew him better people, just because of his influence. Who made people want to be better people. There was something luminous about this man, and I know you all know what I'm talking about.

He was a scientist and an atheist. But no one who knew him could mistake his goodness. He was a teacher; a brilliant one. The first time I met him he spent about an hour explaining why 'cold fusion' - then a news fad - could not possibly work. And I understood every word of it. It never surprised me after that, how much his students loved him. He changed the lives of so many young people for the better, including my own son.

I guess that's at the bottom of my issues with Christianity. No one would want to exclude this lovely man from... well, any kind of goodness. So is it love that matters, or is it belief?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Ethel, it's not really my place to speak for anyone else, but I don't believe that anyone is saying that only Christians believe in, or live, the values of Love. Some Christians may believe that by living your life with Love you are actually being Christian, at least in part, and even if you yourself do not realize it. That would be for them to say. But I am quite sure that everyone here recognizes that it is not only people who identify themselves as Christians that know the value of love.

As one of my great mentors, Babatunde Olatunji, would often say:

Love is the greatest emotion in the world.
Love is the only thing that can save our planet from its pending catastrophe
Love thy neighbor as thyself is the greatest of all laws
Ife L'Oju L'Aiye

[Ethel]

Thank you, V. And may I just say how much I admire you for being able to process all of this in a loving and accepting way? It's very clear to me that you do not feel offended by Christians and that thing they do about condemning everyone except themselves to eternal torment. You have found a different way to understand it, and I think it's a much better way than I have. I think you are right and I am wrong - and I can't tell you how relieved I am to think that!

If there is an afterlife - which I do not believe there is - but if there is, I want to be where Mike is. Heaven or Hell, doesn't matter. Because I knew, loved, and trusted Mike. I know for certain he was good. If he is not acceptable to God, then I will not be either, and do not want to be.

[Cerin]

and that thing they do about condemning everyone except themselves to eternal torment.

Just want to dissociate myself from this characterization.

[Jnyusa]

How do mainstream Christians feel toward those Christians for whom this is an accurate characterization?

The idea is fairly prevalent among the small unaffiliated churches that are so common in the region where I grew up. And I did run into the idea, in a Catholic college, that non-Christians could not get into heaven ... well, specifically, people who were not baptized could not get into heaven. Does anyone know if the Catholic church still holds to that belief today?

I'm asking because it seems to me that this hews fairly close to the point of eborr's post. All of our posters here have disavowed such beliefs, but there are Christians who do believe this, and I'm wondering whether others here consider it problematic? And, getting perhaps closer to where I hoped this thread might go ... what gave rise to beliefs like this?

Baptism, for example, comes from John the Baptist, who was Jewish. But Jews have never practiced Baptism as ... something sacramental, as the Catholics do, for example. (I know that Protestants also baptize but I don't know if it has the same stature as it does for Catholicism.) How did baptism acquire this significance?

Jn

[Teremia]

I certainly wasn't saying above that everybody who is certain they're right is therefore evil. I just think that it can be hazardous to be too certain. Evil is a possible side-effect of certainty that has become so entrenched as to be blind to other ways of viewing the world.

If one is certain that heaven and hell exist, for instance, then slaughtering everyone in a French city (Beziers, 1209) in the faith that "God will know his own" and all will be sorted out in the afterlife might make some kind of sense. But if one is open to the small chance one might be wrong -- or might have misunderstood the instructions of God -- or that one's spiritual leaders might have misunderstood the instructions of God -- then perhaps one might be more cautious and let a few more people live.

One possible approach might be to allow oneself more "certainty" in areas where that certainty does the least harm (for instance, certainty that God is love), and questioning ever more mightily as the stakes become higher ("should we really be going on this Crusade?").

[Primula Baggins]

That is eminently sensible, Teremia.

Jn, speaking for the Lutherans, baptism is significant because it's one of the two sacraments we recognize—meaning it was instituted by Christ. (The other is Communion.) Christ was baptized, and at his baptism God recognized him as God's beloved son. We Lutherans are baptized also—and as infants, to emphasize the point that God is choosing us for his family; we don't choose to join it. Later at 13 or 14 we're confirmed, if we choose to be, after having a couple of years of instruction in the church's beliefs, and become full adult (voting!) members of our congregation. But baptism is the moment of joining the family of God.

Or so, as I said, the Lutherans see it.

[Cerin]

How do mainstream Christians feel toward those Christians for whom this is an accurate characterization?

I would, rather than saying that I feel something towards those Christians, say that I feel that attitude is presumptuous. We are to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling, not make unwarranted assessments of other people's ultimate destinations. God alone knows hearts, God alone is judge.

And I did run into the idea, in a Catholic college, that non-Christians could not get into heaven ... well, specifically, people who were not baptized could not get into heaven. Does anyone know if the Catholic church still holds to that belief today?

I think it may depend on the brand of Catholicism. When Mel Gibson's movie was in the news, I read that he believed (he espoused a more traditional, pre-Vatican council version of Catholicism) that his Protestant wife would not be getting into heaven.

All of our posters here have disavowed such beliefs, but there are Christians who do believe this, and I'm wondering whether others here consider it problematic? And, getting perhaps closer to where I hoped this thread might go ... what gave rise to beliefs like this?

I don't want to contribute to a misunderstanding here. I do believe that only the blood of Christ makes us fit for heaven, but that doesn't translate to me condemning you, you and you to eternal torment. I just don't think in those terms, because I don't know what possibilities exist for God to reach people outside the sphere of this existence.

As to what gave rise to beliefs like this, well for the Bible-believing Protestant branches of Christianity, the Bible, of course. I don't know what the sources are for Catholic doctrine, or for Protestant doctrines that are not based on the Bible.

Baptism, for example, comes from John the Baptist, who was Jewish. But Jews have never practiced Baptism as ... something sacramental, as the Catholics do, for example. I know that Protestants also baptize but I don't know if it has the same stature as it does for Catholicism. How did baptism acquire this significance?

Some of the Protestant branches practice infant baptism while others practice baptism after one is old enough to make a commitment to Christ with understanding. (Such churches may also have dedication ceremonies for infants, in which the parents and sponsors pledge to bring up the child in the knowledge of God.)

As to why it acquired this significance, well because the Bible says that Jesus was baptized and baptized others as did the apostles. It is symbolic of turning away from one's old life of sin and being born again of the Spirit, as well as being a public statement of one's commitment to Christ.

[Jnyusa]

Prim, Cerin, thank you for those explanations. Baptism seems to be more symbolic in your churches ... or maybe I'm over-simplifying ... it seems more related to one's commitment to live a Christian life and not an automatic guarantee of salvation. Well, I suppose there are no automatic guarantees ... but I'm more familiar with the Catholic approach, where Baptism is a sort of pass/fail criterion if I understand it properly. Having it doesn't guarantee you heaven, but you can't get in without it. I don't think they view any of their other sacraments as absolutely necessary for salvation, not quite in the same way.

Jn

[Túrin Turambar]

The fact is this – had the Emperor Constantine the Great embraced Mithraism, and not Christianity, then that would be the dominant religion in Western Europe and the USA

I'm sorry, but that's not a fact, that's a speculation.

It is to an extent, but very probably accurate. Whichever religion got chosen to be the offical religion of the Roman Empire would be set up for a huge boost - export all across Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Had another religion been chosen and not supplanted, it would probably be the dominant religion of the west today.

[nerdanel]

Cerin --

Thank you for taking the time to explain that, because despite your previous explanations I was still slightly off-base about your views on non-Christians and salvation. I'm glad that I understand your beliefs a bit better now.

On the baptism question...

I wonder what the ramifications are for those of us who are baptized Catholics who wish to disavow the faith entirely? If I say that being placed into water three times in a row as an infant was just that, with absolutely no deeper ramifications for my life or potential afterlife than that, does that become reality, I wonder. Or is there some benefit that inheres regardless of my beliefs or actions?

If it is the latter, then - and I say this only half tongue-in-cheek - it seems that everyone should undergo Catholic baptism as an insurance possibility...which makes little sense. If it is the former, then I feel even more strongly that it is wrong to interfere with human autonomy by forcing a religious ritual on someone too young to consent. A child of suitable age (at least 10+) should make the choice to accept his or her tradition. Certainly, if there is an "automatic fail" criteria (if it is as you describe it, Jn, and I must admit I don't know) - it should be, IMO, something that is knowingly done.

Voronwë - very well stated...

[grammar edit - this is ridiculous, I'm becoming the queen of typos]

[Windfola]

Cerin wrote:

In the same way with Christianity, I don't take the inquisition as truly reflecting the teachings of Jesus, but rather as a way that Christians went off the track at that time in history. In other words, people are fallible and naturally make a mess of just about any religion or philosophy in its practical realization; those mistakes reflect the flawed nature and motives of human beings, not necessarily the true nature of the political or religious philosophy they are ostensibly practicing.

I think this is a very valid idea. But the power of Eborr's idea is that by embracing the past we are less likely doomed to repeat it.

So my question would be:

In what ways might today's Christians be off the track, keeping in mind that, of course, no Christian who actually WAS off the track in any age believed they were off the track at the time? And, of course, such off the track Christians have always been able to provide scriptural support for their point of view.

In five hundred years hence, will future Christians look back upon our time with the heartfelt belief that certain practices or ideas were simply aberrations that did not truly reflect the teachings of Jesus? Do Christians truly allow for this possibility when speaking, as they often do, of humbly working out their faith in fear and trembling?

I believe that one of my favorite Christian writers (and your least favorite) , Paul Tillich, considered by many to be one of the two most important Christian theologians of the 20th Century, was indeed very wise when he spoke of the two temptations we face which allow us to evade asking for the Truth that matters. One is the way of those who do not care for the Truth, but the other is the way of those who claim to have the Truth.

[Pearly Di]

On the baptism question...

... Or is there some benefit that inheres regardless of my beliefs or actions?

If it is the latter, then - and I say this only half tongue-in-cheek - it seems that everyone should undergo Catholic baptism as an insurance possibility...which makes little sense. If it is the former, then I feel even more strongly that it is wrong to interfere with human autonomy by forcing a religious ritual on someone too young to consent. A child of suitable age (at least 10+) should make the choice to accept his or her tradition.

I am sympathetic to this argument, Nerdanel ... which is why I make such a lousy Anglican. Not that people of my generation care two hoots about denominational labels anyway.



But in fairness to those who believe in infant baptism, they see it as a sort of New Testament equivalent to circumcision. You're welcoming the child into the faith, into the family of God. (It's funny watching babies at baptisms. "Who's that man/lady in the white frock? Noooo, I want to stay in Mummy's arms. Oh, wait. Maybe this is OK. I'll just lie here and gaze entranced into their face. Why are they pouring water on my head? No, I don't like that. Wait a minute, perhaps I do." )

However, I prefer credo-baptism, or believer's baptism, or whatever you want to call it ... it's what the Baptists believe in anyway. And what their ancestors the Anabaptists died for, back in the 16th century. It's what I myself had, at the age of 16 - full immersion baptism (I wasn't baptised as a baby ... my dear unwed teenage mum had me blessed by a vicar, God bless her). That kind of baptism is a very powerful and moving experience.

Does that mean I regard fellow Christians who believe in infant baptism - and can support their POV from Scripture - as heretics?

Good grief, no.

There is really meant to be just one baptism, however you do it, whether it's sprinkling or immersion. Roman Catholics who become Anglicans don't have to get re-baptised (it's not like they've switched religion.) Which is why I think that Baptist churches which insist on re-baptism are wrong, actually. Although I can understand why someone who got sprinkled as an infant and then converted as an adult would feel compelled to undergo full immersion baptism, 'cause it's a powerful symbolic act. But I don't think it's necessary. They can regard their adult conversion as a flowering of the sacramental act that was made when they were a baby.

Of course, one can be baptised as an adult and then lose one's faith. I've seen it happen.

Or someone can be a baptised Christian and then act like a complete jerk. I've seen that happen too. In that case, that person needs to stop being a jerk and get right with God. The outward sacrament (whether it's infant or adult baptism) is important but it means nothing without the reality of an ongoing relationship with Him.

Sorry, that was a whole bucket-load of theology.

I haven't read the whole thread. The discussion on baptism caught my eye, so I shoved my oar in ...

*slinks into a corner*