Mutate Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 Always on other forums, when there has been a religious debate, someone comes saying, "just leave them alone. They're nice people and that's all that matters. So what if you can disprove their beliefs, stop being nasty, let them be." I remember one said "does it matter if the bible's a bit silly and old fasioned, they're living good lives, thats what matters. And some guy said "I know Jesus never existed, but it makes them nicer people, you shouldn't attack an idea that makes the world a better place". Do you think they like this? I'd be less offended by an opponent than someone who saw me as a harmless irrelevance. At least they respect you enough to test your claims. Unless they think such a person is "more open to the gospel". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted June 5, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted June 5, 2009 I agree that it is offensive to dismiss someone to irrelevance. Fact is, they are not irrelevant. As individuals, they may be happy people and do no harm to their neighbors. They might even feed the hungry and clothe the homeless. But as a group, they also push for restrictive laws that affect us all. They do psychological harm to many of their flock, and generally try their best to impede progress. It's probably a disservice to both sides to consign the religious to irrelevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShallowByThyGame Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 The whole 'why bother' argument is somewhat flawed. We know religion does bad things, and sometimes these things aren't easy to see. Just because people appear to be living good lives does not mean that they're dysfunctional religious worldview is not, or will not, hurt them or others they deal with in some way. Now, if Christians don't wanna talk about it that's fine but people who want to stop the discussion are people who fear conflict and discord, and are probably the most naive of all. They might have close friends are family who are very religious and have trained themselves to walk on eggshells in the name of coexistence. A Christian family may seem like good people for all intents and purposes, but christian teachings can stifle self-esteem and often force people to struggle with the guilt of having sex drives, and it goes on. Supernatural and unscientific beliefs are not healthy, imho, because decisions are then made based on irrational interpretations of reality. Jesus did have some good ideas, but the problem is when he is deified and his thoughts are held as dogma, instead of debated and discussed like other philosopher's writing are. Point is, sometimes it makes the world a worse place. It's a similar argument as trying to get people to stop smoking, or overeating. It might not kill them, it might relax them, it's a social thing, what harm is it to you, etc.... but it does ruin lives despite all that, and it's benefits could easily be replaced with other healthier habits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twincats Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I agree that it is offensive to dismiss someone to irrelevance. Fact is, they are not irrelevant. As individuals, they may be happy people and do no harm to their neighbors. They might even feed the hungry and clothe the homeless. But as a group, they also push for restrictive laws that affect us all. They do psychological harm to many of their flock, and generally try their best to impede progress. It's probably a disservice to both sides to consign the religious to irrelevance. Oh, yes, this! Also, a lot of times they're only nice as long as you 'accept' that they are good because of their deity. If you question, the kid gloves come right off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godlessgrrl Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 I've tended to regard the "leave Christians alone, they're not hurting anyone" thing as being either controlling or naive (or sometimes both), depending on who it comes from. If it comes from someone who isn't Christian, I consider it naive, because Christians and certain brands of Christianity can indeed cause harm to others. Consider the impact the Religious Right has had on American culture, civil rights, science, politics, and education over the past 50 years, for instance. Leaving Christians like that alone lets them continue to get away with all sorts of nastiness. If it comes from a Christian, it might be naive, but it also might be a sneaky way of trying to guilt-trip others into letting them get away with bigotry. Sure, people have the freedom to believe what they want, and a belief in and of itself doesn't necessarily hurt anyone... but it's a certain mindset and a certain belief that eventually leads to things like Prop 8 and the murder of Dr. George Tiller. And I really think that a lot of Christians know this, and that a lot of the time, an appeal to "leave Christians alone" is a manipulative way to get people to do just that: leave them alone so they can do their bad work without interference from pesky people who'd question their actions. There are people who manage to take Christianity and extract good from it, denominations that are genuinely giving, people who are genuinely loving - those aren't the kind of Christians who are a problem, in my book. I don't share their beliefs, but they get good from it somewhere, and do good from it. If every Christian could be like that, then muzzling them really would be picking on them, and the admonition to "leave Christians alone" would be deserved. So it just depends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShallowByThyGame Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 To hear a discussion on this topic: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagan Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Jesus did have some good ideas I am actually re-thinking that. Yes, he preached respect for authority and was kind to children and all that, but those were just acts to support his central message. In the gospels, his message is all about ushering in a new kingdom of god. He was reforming the Jewish religion. He was like a Jewish Martin Luther (horrible, anachronistic analogy but you see my point I hope) except he actually believed he was the son of god. Like I said I am re-thinking this. Joel Osteen has some good ideas too, but the man is so obviously only doing good deeds for his own gain. Reading the bible with new eyes I don't see Jesus as a good teacher anymore, I see a wannabe reformer with a messiah complex doing good deeds and being nice to people to advance his agenda -- reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Jesus did have some good ideas I am actually re-thinking that. Yes, he preached respect for authority and was kind to children and all that, but those were just acts to support his central message. In the gospels, his message is all about ushering in a new kingdom of god. He was reforming the Jewish religion. He was like a Jewish Martin Luther (horrible, anachronistic analogy but you see my point I hope) except he actually believed he was the son of god. Like I said I am re-thinking this. Joel Osteen has some good ideas too, but the man is so obviously only doing good deeds for his own gain. Reading the bible with new eyes I don't see Jesus as a good teacher anymore, I see a wannabe reformer with a messiah complex doing good deeds and being nice to people to advance his agenda -- reform. You don't have to go that far. Here's all you need. In one move he removes all his credibility. When confronted with the reality of selling the oil or letting it be used on himself he says "There will always be poor people so what's it going matter?" I don't care if this is all leading up to some big moment (it's not...a woman can't anoint anyone and lots of other issues). What it does is undermine the message. He gets on the religious leaders for "living large" and when it comes around to his chance to "live large" (so to speak) does he say "Hey, yeah, lets donate that to the poor?" Nope. He "lives large" and says "There will always be poor among us." It's the same damn message but now that it is HIS turn at get oiled up by the groupies, well, what can you do? Dividing up fishes and loaves is easy but making money multiply is fucking impossible even for a god. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Always on other forums, when there has been a religious debate, someone comes saying, "just leave them alone. They're nice people and that's all that matters. So what if you can disprove their beliefs, stop being nasty, let them be." I remember one said "does it matter if the bible's a bit silly and old fasioned, they're living good lives, thats what matters. And some guy said "I know Jesus never existed, but it makes them nicer people, you shouldn't attack an idea that makes the world a better place". Homophobia. Misogyny. Blatant racism. The desire to actively make WW3 start. Is that "living a good life"? Yes there are believers who are positively influenced by their faith. They are the moderate/liberal ones. They may believe things that are questionable at least... but they do not run around trying to shove those believes down everyone's throat, and they do not think that believing it automatically makes them Herrenmenschen. Do you think they like this? I'd be less offended by an opponent than someone who saw me as a harmless irrelevance. At least they respect you enough to test your claims. Unless they think such a person is "more open to the gospel". I'd say there's a difference between respecting someone on the basis of "I don't agree with you, but you don't hurt anyone so why should I bother?" and pitying/patronizing. If you ask me, the former is perfectly fine and I have a hard time imagining how it might be insulting. The latter, on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PitterPatter Posted June 7, 2009 Share Posted June 7, 2009 It's a big mistake to just think that Christians are good people. If they are good people, it's despite their religion. The law of the land is in great contrast with the bible, and whether they realize it or not, they respect the law of the land much much more. Like any belief system some people are going to take it more seriously than others. And that's how you get characters like Scott Roeder. If that man had a scientific understanding of the world he wouldn't have gone after Tiller. Science truly is the candle in the dark. Christians are not irrelevant, and I agree that this sort of opinion is insulting to both sides. They make up a great percentage of the country and have a very significant effect on policy and shaping (*cough*abusing*cough*) young minds. So their ignorance and bigotry hurt all of us and hurt the progress of our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts