s/o Christians practicing Yoga

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let me get this straight: Jesus can judge and rebuke, so this gives the same license to you. All His words to his disciples - mere mortals like you and me - about loving your neighbor and your enemy alike, not judging others - that applies to the rest of us normal folk, but not to you?

(And don't get me started on His instructions to his disciples not to set themselves above each other.)

No, my point is to identify what Jesus considered especially anti-Christian behavior.

Christians are not supposed to sit idly by when people do things that are un-Christian. You and I both know it. We are obligated to speak up. And earlier poster already posted Luke 17:3 on that. We aren't talking about looking down at someone because they feed formula to their infant.

I was the one who posted Luke 17:3. I'm sorry, but now it looks like you're applying Luke 17:3 to Christians but not to non-Christians. And sorry a second time, but you really did imply that if Jesus does it, this gives you license to do it too.

But don't worry, all is not lost, you're providing plenty of amusement to the Ranting Atheist as you trash the rest of us and use the bible to justify yourself.

Where did I say it only applied to Christians? I posted my own criticism of Ranting Atheist elsewhere, and he or she took it pretty constructively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You can't claim With 100 percent certainty that there aren't green fairies dancing around me right now, it doesn't make it any lesS ridiculous. Look up "the scientific principle".

But it doesn't make either of us an atheist about fairies, either. It makes us both agnostic. Unless you also argue that you and I, when we allow for for maybe a 5-10% chance of fairies (and unicorns), are "atheists" about fairies instead of agnostics.

It's a question of consistency. And being consistent makes you agnostic, unless you're 100% sure those fairies don't exist.

[Anonymous]

Where did I say it only applied to Christians? I posted my own criticism of Ranting Atheist elsewhere, and he or she took it pretty constructively.

Uh huh. Because you lobbed a real softball the one time you criticized Ranting Atheist. Whereas in the last page or two you've called other Christians hypocrites, un-Christian, and more. And that's just the last 2 pages on this thread, we haven't begun to talk about the other threads you posted on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Where did I say it only applied to Christians? I posted my own criticism of Ranting Atheist elsewhere, and he or she took it pretty constructively.

Uh huh. Because you lobbed a real softball the one time you criticized Ranting Atheist. Whereas in the last page or two you've called other Christians hypocrites, un-Christian, and more. And that's just the last 2 pages on this thread, we haven't begun to talk about the other threads you posted on.

The tone was consistent with the tone in my original post here. And frankly I do not feel a personal obligation to provide equal time to each and every poster, nor do you. I am concerned about the portrayal of Christianity on this site because I am a Christian. but if you feel so strongly that each of us must post equal commentary on both sides of this debate, please demonstrate it by your actions. I might learn something from your example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can't claim With 100 percent certainty that there aren't green fairies dancing around me right now, it doesn't make it any lesS ridiculous. Look up "the scientific principle".

But it doesn't make either of us an atheist about fairies, either. It makes us both agnostic. Unless you also argue that you and I, when we allow for for maybe a 5-10% chance of fairies (and unicorns), are "atheists" about fairies instead of agnostics.

It's a question of consistency. And being consistent makes you agnostic, unless you're 100% sure those fairies don't exist.

Because DH is off with DS and DD is practicing piano...

Here's a little rubric for you, to show the logical consequences of how you use the term "atheist":

- PERSON OF FAITH: 100% sure God (or fairies) exist. Includes Tea Party and other fundamentalists (and people who believe 100% in fairies).

- ATHEIST: 1% to 100% sure God doesn't exist. Includes Mother Theresa, people who currently call themselves agnostics and might be unhappy that you are relabeling them, Richard Dawkins, and all people who are 100% sure God doesn't exist and can ignore the intellectual failure of such a position. (Also, anybody who believes with less than 100% certainty in fairies is an "atheist.")

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where did I say it only applied to Christians? I posted my own criticism of Ranting Atheist elsewhere, and he or she took it pretty constructively.

Uh huh. Because you lobbed a real softball the one time you criticized Ranting Atheist. Whereas in the last page or two you've called other Christians hypocrites, un-Christian, and more. And that's just the last 2 pages on this thread, we haven't begun to talk about the other threads you posted on.

The tone was consistent with the tone in my original post here. And frankly I do not feel a personal obligation to provide equal time to each and every poster, nor do you. I am concerned about the portrayal of Christianity on this site because I am a Christian. but if you feel so strongly that each of us must post equal commentary on both sides of this debate, please demonstrate it by your actions. I might learn something from your example.


I do appreciate the example you set by being nicer to atheists than I am. There are some good things to say about this. I think there is actually room for some discussion on this, however. As I intended with the quote from Luke 17, I don't believe being a Christian means being a total doormat. Challenging people on their behavior can, IMO at least, be much more productive than acting holier-than-thou (because that's off-putting) or simply letting yourself be a doormat. Why not challenge people in order to get them to engage in self-reflection (assuming they're capable of that)?

Obviously being a hostile Christian is not a good thing, ever. But here's another interesting point for discussion: I truly believe that I haven't said anything meaner to atheist posters than you said to me, when you called me a hypocrite and so, so much more.

Which leads to a third point, which is how I am disappointed with the example you set towards your neighbors, i.e. the rest of us poor schlubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can't claim With 100 percent certainty that there aren't green fairies dancing around me right now, it doesn't make it any lesS ridiculous. Look up "the scientific principle".

But it doesn't make either of us an atheist about fairies, either. It makes us both agnostic. Unless you also argue that you and I, when we allow for for maybe a 5-10% chance of fairies (and unicorns), are "atheists" about fairies instead of agnostics.

It's a question of consistency. And being consistent makes you agnostic, unless you're 100% sure those fairies don't exist.

Because DH is off with DS and DD is practicing piano...

Here's a little rubric for you, to show the logical consequences of how you use the term "atheist":

- PERSON OF FAITH: 100% sure God (or fairies) exist. Includes Tea Party and other fundamentalists (and people who believe 100% in fairies).

- ATHEIST: 1% to 100% sure God doesn't exist. Includes Mother Theresa, people who currently call themselves agnostics and might be unhappy that you are relabeling them, Richard Dawkins, and all people who are 100% sure God doesn't exist and can ignore the intellectual failure of such a position. (Also, anybody who believes with less than 100% certainty in fairies is an "atheist.")

Here's a slightly more "nuanced" version of the compulsion to relabel agnostics as atheists:

- PERSON OF FAITH: 100% sure God (or fairies) exist. Includes Tea Party and other fundamentalists (and people who believe 100% in fairies).

- AGNOSTIC: People who are 1-50% certain God exists. Includes Mother Theresa, probably Desmond Tutu (he's normal after all), most priests and bishops, and many other people who currently call themselves agnostics and might be unhappy that you're relabeling them.

- ATHEIST: 51% to 100% sure God doesn't exist. Includes the rest of the people who currently call themselves agnostics and might be unhappy that you are relabeling them, Richard Dawkins, and the handful of people who are 100% sure God doesn't exist and can ignore the intellectual failure of such a position.

It's still ridiculous. Not to mention insulting to all the people you just relabeled without their consent.

[Anonymous]

Let's try again. Here's a slightly more "nuanced" version of the compulsion to relabel agnostics as atheists:

- PERSON OF FAITH: 100% sure God (or fairies) exist. Includes Tea Party and other fundamentalists (and people who believe 100% in fairies).

- AGNOSTIC: People who are 50-99% certain God exists. Includes Mother Theresa, probably Desmond Tutu (he's normal after all), possibly most priests and bishops, and many other people who currently call themselves agnostics and might be unhappy that you're relabeling them.

- ATHEIST: 51% to 100% sure God doesn't exist. Includes the rest of the people who currently call themselves agnostics and might be unhappy that you are relabeling them, Richard Dawkins, and the handful of people who are 100% sure God doesn't exist and can ignore the intellectual failure of such a position.

It's still ridiculous. Not to mention insulting to all the people you just relabeled without their consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where did I say it only applied to Christians? I posted my own criticism of Ranting Atheist elsewhere, and he or she took it pretty constructively.

Uh huh. Because you lobbed a real softball the one time you criticized Ranting Atheist. Whereas in the last page or two you've called other Christians hypocrites, un-Christian, and more. And that's just the last 2 pages on this thread, we haven't begun to talk about the other threads you posted on.

The tone was consistent with the tone in my original post here. And frankly I do not feel a personal obligation to provide equal time to each and every poster, nor do you. I am concerned about the portrayal of Christianity on this site because I am a Christian. but if you feel so strongly that each of us must post equal commentary on both sides of this debate, please demonstrate it by your actions. I might learn something from your example.

I do appreciate the example you set by being nicer to atheists than I am. There are some good things to say about this. I think there is actually room for some discussion on this, however. As I intended with the quote from Luke 17, I don't believe being a Christian means being a total doormat. Challenging people on their behavior can, IMO at least, be much more productive than acting holier-than-thou (because that's off-putting) or simply letting yourself be a doormat. Why not challenge people in order to get them to engage in self-reflection (assuming they're capable of that)?

Obviously being a hostile Christian is not a good thing, ever. But here's another interesting point for discussion: I truly believe that I haven't said anything meaner to atheist posters than you said to me, when you called me a hypocrite and so, so much more.

Which leads to a third point, which is how I am disappointed with the example you set towards your neighbors, i.e. the rest of us poor schlubs.

Good, I have challenged people for their behavior. I don't think this is terribly judgmental, and it suggests a practical positive step that Christians can take:

So given that we borrow religious traditions for secular use, and our religions borrow from other religions, why do we take offense when non-Christians borrow from Christian traditions? I am speaking about Christmas and the thread on Atheists and Lent. It seems incredibly inconsistent. I think we should imagine how easy it is for us to sign up for yoga, and realize that this may be the same way an atheist approaches our traditions.

I don't think the tone of that is condescending or particularly negative.

My elaboration was this:

Sure. No one likes an asshole. But it's unfair to attack a whole group because it has some assholes in it. You would not attack all muslims because there are muslim terrorists, nor would you assume every breastfeeding mother is a BF crazy who shuns formula feeders.

But on top of that, there are many posters who suggest that it is inappropriate for non-religious posters of any temperament to participate in religious traditions, or to accuse them of being closet theists for doing so.

So my points are two:

1. It is unfair to treat any group as a unified whole, collectively responsible for the misbehavior of a few.
2. If we religious people see no problem in appropriating, for secular purposes, the traditions of other belief systems, we should not discourage them from participating unless there is a specific and genuine theological problem (say receiving Catholic communion or attending a service closed to non-members).

To me, Christians are all called to spread the word. We can do that in three ways:
*To teach our religious beliefs
*To live by example
*To welcome and support people who are open to exploring faith traditions

Of those,

*Teaching is really tough. There's not much room at the water cooler for someone to debate faith vs works, the role of women in Christianity, or the implications of the bible on the foundation of a moral economy.

*Living by example is certainly achievable, but it only has so much influence on a person's philosophical/religious journey. At some point they take a leap.

*The last, to welcome, is really important. Rarely do non-believers step into religion based on a logical analysis of theology. There is always a component based on community, feeling like they belong, seeing that the community positively impacts them and the world around them. They may never have a vision in their bed at night, but they may connect on an emotional level if they are shown love and support.

So this is why I believe it is wrong to cut off any person who wants to try out a religious tradition. You never know how it may affect them. I say welcome them and let them see for themselves if they find meaning in it.

I didn't see that as judgmental or un-Christian. I think it's a pretty solid statement in support of inclusiveness.

My comment to RantingAtheist is this:

While I have your attention, I do think they have a point, which is that atheists often mock the notion of faith. I think that there is enough data on humans to recognize that all of us make decisions based on factors other than reason. In fact, there may be data to suggest that free will itself is an illusion, therefore making moot any judgment about what is relevant in defining beliefs at all (the fields of biology, and also cosmology). Even an atheist can appreciate that, not that we shouldn't try hard to form good beliefs. Yes, they bring it on themselves by trying to prove God through reason, especially when they are not particularly well versed in the ground already covered by the philosophers. But it's OK for people to be at a different point in the discovery process. Everyone starts from scratch and has to work through these ideas as though they are new.

So I suggest that as long as theists approach proof of God with some humility, that atheists should counter in a respectful way. That way we all grow.

I don't see this as particularly different in tone. In each of the last two posts I acknowledged weaknesses on both sides and suggested a positive way forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where did I say it only applied to Christians? I posted my own criticism of Ranting Atheist elsewhere, and he or she took it pretty constructively.

Uh huh. Because you lobbed a real softball the one time you criticized Ranting Atheist. Whereas in the last page or two you've called other Christians hypocrites, un-Christian, and more. And that's just the last 2 pages on this thread, we haven't begun to talk about the other threads you posted on.

The tone was consistent with the tone in my original post here. And frankly I do not feel a personal obligation to provide equal time to each and every poster, nor do you. I am concerned about the portrayal of Christianity on this site because I am a Christian. but if you feel so strongly that each of us must post equal commentary on both sides of this debate, please demonstrate it by your actions. I might learn something from your example.

I do appreciate the example you set by being nicer to atheists than I am. There are some good things to say about this. I think there is actually room for some discussion on this, however. As I intended with the quote from Luke 17, I don't believe being a Christian means being a total doormat. Challenging people on their behavior can, IMO at least, be much more productive than acting holier-than-thou (because that's off-putting) or simply letting yourself be a doormat. Why not challenge people in order to get them to engage in self-reflection (assuming they're capable of that)?

Obviously being a hostile Christian is not a good thing, ever. But here's another interesting point for discussion: I truly believe that I haven't said anything meaner to atheist posters than you said to me, when you called me a hypocrite and so, so much more.

Which leads to a third point, which is how I am disappointed with the example you set towards your neighbors, i.e. the rest of us poor schlubs.

Good, I have challenged people for their behavior. I don't think this is terribly judgmental, and it suggests a practical positive step that Christians can take:

So given that we borrow religious traditions for secular use, and our religions borrow from other religions, why do we take offense when non-Christians borrow from Christian traditions? I am speaking about Christmas and the thread on Atheists and Lent. It seems incredibly inconsistent. I think we should imagine how easy it is for us to sign up for yoga, and realize that this may be the same way an atheist approaches our traditions.

I don't think the tone of that is condescending or particularly negative.

My elaboration was this:

Sure. No one likes an asshole. But it's unfair to attack a whole group because it has some assholes in it. You would not attack all muslims because there are muslim terrorists, nor would you assume every breastfeeding mother is a BF crazy who shuns formula feeders.

But on top of that, there are many posters who suggest that it is inappropriate for non-religious posters of any temperament to participate in religious traditions, or to accuse them of being closet theists for doing so.

So my points are two:

1. It is unfair to treat any group as a unified whole, collectively responsible for the misbehavior of a few.
2. If we religious people see no problem in appropriating, for secular purposes, the traditions of other belief systems, we should not discourage them from participating unless there is a specific and genuine theological problem (say receiving Catholic communion or attending a service closed to non-members).

To me, Christians are all called to spread the word. We can do that in three ways:
*To teach our religious beliefs
*To live by example
*To welcome and support people who are open to exploring faith traditions

Of those,

*Teaching is really tough. There's not much room at the water cooler for someone to debate faith vs works, the role of women in Christianity, or the implications of the bible on the foundation of a moral economy.

*Living by example is certainly achievable, but it only has so much influence on a person's philosophical/religious journey. At some point they take a leap.

*The last, to welcome, is really important. Rarely do non-believers step into religion based on a logical analysis of theology. There is always a component based on community, feeling like they belong, seeing that the community positively impacts them and the world around them. They may never have a vision in their bed at night, but they may connect on an emotional level if they are shown love and support.

So this is why I believe it is wrong to cut off any person who wants to try out a religious tradition. You never know how it may affect them. I say welcome them and let them see for themselves if they find meaning in it.

I didn't see that as judgmental or un-Christian. I think it's a pretty solid statement in support of inclusiveness.

My comment to RantingAtheist is this:

While I have your attention, I do think they have a point, which is that atheists often mock the notion of faith. I think that there is enough data on humans to recognize that all of us make decisions based on factors other than reason. In fact, there may be data to suggest that free will itself is an illusion, therefore making moot any judgment about what is relevant in defining beliefs at all (the fields of biology, and also cosmology). Even an atheist can appreciate that, not that we shouldn't try hard to form good beliefs. Yes, they bring it on themselves by trying to prove God through reason, especially when they are not particularly well versed in the ground already covered by the philosophers. But it's OK for people to be at a different point in the discovery process. Everyone starts from scratch and has to work through these ideas as though they are new.

So I suggest that as long as theists approach proof of God with some humility, that atheists should counter in a respectful way. That way we all grow.

I don't see this as particularly different in tone. In each of the last two posts I acknowledged weaknesses on both sides and suggested a positive way forward.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the response. Your analogy with yoga seemed constructive to me (and for the record, I've never been bothered by others borrowing Lent, and my only post on that subject was to say it doesn't detract from my own Lent). My point, however, is that you have called me hypocritical and unchristian, and probably other things although they don't come to mind at the moment. That is quite a difference in tone, I think, from your approach to the Ranting Atheist (which I do appreciate).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the response. Your analogy with yoga seemed constructive to me (and for the record, I've never been bothered by others borrowing Lent, and my only post on that subject was to say it doesn't detract from my own Lent). My point, however, is that you have called me hypocritical and unchristian, and probably other things although they don't come to mind at the moment. That is quite a difference in tone, I think, from your approach to the Ranting Atheist (which I do appreciate).

I think that maybe you have me confused with another poster who used that term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the response. Your analogy with yoga seemed constructive to me (and for the record, I've never been bothered by others borrowing Lent, and my only post on that subject was to say it doesn't detract from my own Lent). My point, however, is that you have called me hypocritical and unchristian, and probably other things although they don't come to mind at the moment. That is quite a difference in tone, I think, from your approach to the Ranting Atheist (which I do appreciate).

I think that maybe you have me confused with another poster who used that term.

Hmmm. Then my gut tells me it comes from the only other group to post on this thread, but then we start getting into probabilities and belief, and we all know how that conversation goes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the response. Your analogy with yoga seemed constructive to me (and for the record, I've never been bothered by others borrowing Lent, and my only post on that subject was to say it doesn't detract from my own Lent). My point, however, is that you have called me hypocritical and unchristian, and probably other things although they don't come to mind at the moment. That is quite a difference in tone, I think, from your approach to the Ranting Atheist (which I do appreciate).

I think that maybe you have me confused with another poster who used that term.

Hmmm. Then my gut tells me it comes from the only other group to post on this thread, but then we start getting into probabilities and belief, and we all know how that conversation goes!

I don't know. The only comment I made on hypocrisy is the bible quote. The point of Jesus' quote about the pharisees is that they make rules in order to deny others access to God. I think that is analogous to pushing away non-believers who try out Christian practices like Lent. Jesus was very accepting of non-Jews in the way that we should be accepting of non-believers.

[Anonymous]

OK, yes, thanks for reminding me of hypocrisy quote, and I'll try not to use it too much against you. I guess the only relevant thing is that you seemed to direct it right at me, and that's what riled me up.

Yes, the NT is very accepting to non-believers and strangers. And Jesus was also not bothered about the guy who did miracles in His name. For me the bottom line is really that a non-Christian celebrating Lent is welcome to get whatever he or she wants out of it.

However, the issue of nasty atheist posters is a separate issue, and I do think they need to be challenged. If it takes some frank talk, instead of sweet talk, then I don't see a problem with challenging them frankly.