17 Comments

I think the one thing many people don’t understand, especially believers, is that there was no “bible” until long after all the books were written. The Hebrews had the Torah, and even that had several versions. Everything else was dozens of books, written at different times by different people, being spread around and shared and waxing and waning in significance, all basically as a reflection of various social norms at different times (much the same way writings over the past 2 centuries of the US would simultaneously reflect this nation, while also being all over the dang place in tone and content). Even the New Testament is a collection of stories, letters, and predictions, written by various authors at different times from all over the Roman Empire, still reflecting their culture and situation at the time.

I bring all of this up because I think both sides have really lost sight of the main thing Christianity is about as they obsess over the details; the idea of grace, love, and forgiveness. You can argue about contradictions in the text, and there are a zillion, and you can selectively grab on to certain phrases in order to shame and attack people, while conveniently ignoring contrary passages. But the overall point that defined Christianity as so different from it’s peers and predecessors is that focus on love and community. The “ideal” member of most religions is a zealot for rules and rituals; the “ideal” Christian is a father who loves his children and is willing to sacrifice, and die, for them, even the wayward ones. It’s a clunky and certainly imperfect message, but there is much good to it; it’s not just another list of gods and list of demands. I’m not really a Christian and I don’t feel we necessarily need to believe in this particular story, but I think it was a powerful idea at the time and positively impacted the world–it would have done more but far too many people get caught up on the (cherry-picked) details.

You really can’t blame people for obsessing over the details when you consider what the other side of the coin is, though.

Get this right and you get to spend the rest of time in a place that is so fantastically good that you can’t even describe it using human language.

Botch the job and you get that same time period in a maelstrom of suffering and fire.

For what its worth- I once asked a Catholic Priest, aka a Catholic-Christian Priest, about- [in his view, + to him, his view is what the Catholic denomination believes], about Hell.
I asked him- in the Christian religion, who goes to Hell?

His response was, [this is [about] what he said, I might not remember it word-for-word]:
“The people who go to Hell are: 1) the person or people who say to [in his view- the God, Jesus Christ], “You are God. I know that you are God, and 2) I totally turn my back on you. I know that you are God, and I choose to totally abandon you, permanently.”

In his view, those are the people who go to the Christian religion’s Hell, or the opposite of Heaven, or Hades, or whatever name that people choose to call it.

Other people might say that, “The fire + brimstone sermons’ views on Hades, is the correct view”. [I’m not a fan.] Not all Christian people, or others, share those sermons’ view, of Hades.

But as I understand it- in this Catholic Priest’s view of Hades, his explanation of how Hades works- is the Christian people’s view of Hades, [or some people will tell you- that is the Catholic Christians’ view, of Hades].

(I apologize for the long comment. In my view, this is a complicated topic, to try and explain.)

Having said that- in making my comment- I’m not trying to make anyone agree, or disagree, with what this Catholic Priest has said. This is his explanation, of this topic.)

The problem with Christianity started cropping up around the time it got political. You can thank Constantine (the emperor, not the mage) for that. Because once it became political, it became a political tool. To be abused, ripped apart, cherry-picked, and used as hyperbole and an eventual backslide to demagoguery and malice.

The guy, according to his story, had a simple message. The ten commandments and all that, it came from the Torah. Which makes sense, given the guy was a Jewish Rabbi. But his message was sweet and simple: Love Thy Neighbor. It means you don’t have to hate anymore. You don’t have to hate someone because of where they grew up, or what gods they pray to, or what part of the world they came from. It’s a simple message of tolerance.

Assuming we take the stories at face value, let’s look at who actually were the recipients of miracles. Orphans, widows, the crippled and lame, conquered peoples, those who were under Roman law ‘second class’ at best. In a world where slavery was seen as ‘just part of society’, he reached out to and helped the minorities of his day and age.

How that has been twisted into a rhetoric of hatred, bigotry, and intolerance is mental gymnastics I wish I did not understand. But, as with any political topic, can be merely grist for the mill. All you have to do is not respect the original content, and a world of ‘reinterpretations’ will open up before you.

From what I’ve learned, or figured out, from being raised in a reasonably tolerant version of Lutheranism and being a Jehovah’s Witness for several years (no longer, they’ve gone all culty now), And my family’s surprisingly accept everyone, show love and kindness view, Christ expects us to follow his laws. We are to do the best we can as imperfect humans and he understands we make mistakes and is almost endlessly forgiving, except as mentioned above about turning from God and having no sincere sense of we have done wrong in our hearts.

You also have to take in consideration the views of the times when things were translated, men had the opinion they were the boss in some aspects even though women were meant to be their equal and partner in the doing things together sense, and frankly , because they were human the scribes who translated made mistakes.

Of course. But the problem, to me, is that people blame the original message and not the people twisting it. You can become intolerant in any belief system, if you take it to extremes. Anyone can cherry-pick messages and details to suit their ends. But the thing is, they were doing that anyway. And are doing it. And will continue to do it. Getting less “religious” hasn’t stopped fanaticism. Like I said, I don’t really believe in Christ, I just don’t have faith in his literal existence, but at least I can credit it with a good message that has often broken through the politics and the abuse. There are other religions, which shall remain nameless, that actually STARTED as extreme and fanatical beliefs, and it’s only though IGNORING the core that they have moderated (which you can even argue was Christianity itself, as it started as strict Judaism and moderated into Christianity). I’d prefer a nice community that sometimes forms lynch mobs, over a gang of cutthroats that develop a very rudimentary system of order, just enough to avoid absolute chaos.

I dunno, I guess I have just gotten sick of the hyper-focused Reddit atheist types who are as obsessed with Christianity as any Bible-thumper, and can only see the bad things and never any of the good. There’s a quote those types like to throw around that goes something like “Creationists use science the way a drunk uses a lamp post–for support, not illumination,” but alot of the angry anti-Christian people do the same thing with the Bible; they don’t use it as a historical and cultural resource that, sometimes, has some good lessons and stories in it, but only read it (or about it) to find ammunition to throw in the face of anyone they see wearing a little cross on a necklace. My brother is like this, so maybe this is all a personal pet peeve, lol.

I’d like there to be a heaven as well.

If there is a just God who lives in (and rules) Heaven, there MUST also be a Hell. Otherwise cruel, evil people (the most popular example being Hitler) will be rewarded for their cruelty. (And if there is no God, how can there be a Heaven?)

The next question being, of course, Who or what determines the dividing line between who goes where?

According to Christian doctrine, mankind was created to automatically go to Heaven. But because of the Fall (in the Garden of Eden,) now we’re all born going to Hell. But God doesn’t want that to happen, so He chose to allow a part of Himself to take that penalty, thus satisfying His justice. Now all you have to do to go to Heaven is to submit yourself to the rulership (i.e. “follow”) of Jesus the Christ and His sacrifice will be placed on your account — just as if you’d paid the penalty of Hell yourself. No amount of good deeds or works can get you out of going to Hell, as well as no amount of bad deeds will make it any worse for you.

This unique doctrine is one of the things that makes Christianity different from all other religions.

Ok, seriously. That last panel really got me. I actually teared up a little. Well done, Jackie

I’m just going to assume you were crying about something in a far green country under a swift sun rise and forgive you ;-)

I know Alex’s whole thing is that she’s well-read, intellectual… but man does she sometimes come off as pretty damn patronising. Even if it’s said kindly- I assume, since I can’t hear her- and she means well, that first panel is about as condescending as any sequence of English words I’ve ever seen or heard! It’s exactly the same type of tone as ‘someone being really self-consciously “reasonable” and refusing to resort to ad hominem in an online argument whilst also knowing they’re making the other party look like an idiot child’.

I mean, sometimes in order to get someone to see the benefit of another perspective, you need to point out the flaw in their current perspective. I don’t think it’s an insult to point out a pattern you’ve noticed in someone’s thinking, even when it’s in the context of suggesting it might be flawed. I consider that a kindness, I’ve certainly benefitted from it a few times, and I’ve also helped a fair few people using that method as well.

As with many things, intentions really matter here. She isn’t speaking from a place of malice but rather is genuinely trying to help him to reflect on himself so he might grow to meet the potential she knows he has. He’s not stupid, but sometimes he can get in his own way either through his ego or his sense of righteousness, which leads to a potentially overly simplistic worldview at times. He genuinely would benefit from re-examining his previous conclusions, from looking at things from more angles than he normally does, and from accepting more complexity into his worldview.

I’ve found some people can struggle to identify the difference between a hand trying to help them up from one pushing them down, because all they know is they are looking up at a hand and they aren’t comfortable with the idea that someone might be above them. But if they take the hand up, the one offering it won’t be above them anymore and then they can meet on equal footing. It isn’t condescension to offer a hand up, and there’s rarely a benefit in false humility to pretend that isn’t what it is.

Yeah, but to be fair, Reggie earns it. He doesn’t learn well from gentle guidance. He doesn’t even learn that well from his own catastrophic mistakes. He learns when someone makes him the fool. Ironically, his own ego, that makes him annoying, also forces him to change when he realizes he is looking bad. Thomas has to trick him into it, but Reggie has an affection for Alex and so she can afford to prod him directly. Which I think is a sign of a good and healthy relationship. Not that it can’t be taken too far, of course, but your significant other should be able to say “Honey, I love you, but you are being dumb in this instance; please remove your foot from your mouth and listen for a second.”

Oh, man, that last panel. Now I’m holding tears in like the cop from Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs.

Leave a Reply to Master-Magoo Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.