Mocking Christianity

[Ihatepcos]

I am so sick of people thinking it's okay to ridicule Catholicism and Christianity. This is especially apparent on Mumsnet. Every time there's a thread about religion I can't even read the replies because they're so awful.

The same doesn't seem to apply to the Muslim, Jewish, Hindu faiths etc.

If you don't believe in God that is your choice. But purposely mocking someone's faith and calling it a load of bullshit (and worse) is just not acceptable. So many people turn to faith to help them through extremely tough times in life and you are mocking the only thing that is keeping them going.

@ArDi

In genesis god punished Adam and eve for gaining knowledge

Id say that's a pretty direct message for how the religion is meant to be followed and for what your god thinks

If it's meant to be study in historical context instead of a rule book of behaviour then how do you know which bits are the important bits?

It’s mainly atheists who insist Christians must take everything in the Bible as literally applicable today, and eschew “cherry picking”. Funny that you like the idea of cherry picking when Buddhists recommend it, but not Christians.

Nowhere in Christian writing or thought is there an injunction to switch off your brain and do exactly what the Bible says. It’s always been studied in its historical context and people have devoted their lives to understanding the ancient languages and cultures it originated from. But it’s a lovely straw man for you to shoot at.

@ArDi the problem is that it's those Biblical literalists who are the most vocal and who want to impose their cherry picked bits of Bible on everyone else. They do switch off their brains and then they push their brain-free interpretations on others, including influencing law making.

You're also guilty of the straw man tactic here, because what was said about Buddhism is explicitly not cherrypicking: it's an instruction to try these tenets, and if they do not work to use your brain and come up with ones that do. Cherrypicking literalists do not do this. They throw literal Biblical verses around which suit them and ignore those that do not, and use them as tools to oppress people with.

I have no issue with people who look at the Bible in context of the time we live in and try to live by those tenets. My Christian friends number among them. I have problems with the ones who get in my kids' faces and rant at them for being gay.

I am religious, believe in God. But I do struggle with trusting the bible as law 😬 sorry if I offend. But it's not written by God. I find it hard to trust a guys vision or prophet interpretation of what god indicates from so many centuries ago. I mean interpreting visions nowadays can have so many different versions or possible meanings. Also it has been amended and parts taken out over the years so I find it hard to trust as 100% accurate. 😬I really hope I haven't pissed people off, it's just my feeling

Of course, what you're saying is nonsense. There is plenty of Christian writing and thought insisting that you should do exactly what the Bible says. And plenty more that says that you should ignore those bits of the Bible that are at odds with modern sensibilities. And plenty of disagreement about which bits are true doctrine and which are not among Christians.

In Western society, it is the Bible and Christianity that has been used to justify a lot of attitudes and our laws especially towards LGBT rights and women's rights.

This is why it gets discussed, criticised, commented on and there are calls for the influence of the Church to be reduced.

It's what a lot of people know about, it has been a part of our culture.

And it's prominent Christians who hold power and who have held power who seem to have forgotten what Jesus said about how others should be treated. Looking at you, Rees Mogg, Anne Widdecombe - so called Christians who I think would be judged by Jesus.

I like this from the West Wing

Nowhere in Christian writing or thought is there an injunction to switch off your brain and do exactly what the Bible says.

Luke 11:28.
Psalm 18:30
Deuteronomy 28:1-68

Someone will be alone soon to quote other verses that contradict these. Then we can have a crusade. Yay.

What is this 'Christianity' OP refers to?

I found a definition ...
Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Sure, OP. You're right. Nothing there worthy of ridicule or mockery.

Of course if variants of that particular belief had caused centuries of wars, or if, say, holders of such a belief knowingly and systematically sheltered child-abusers, it might be different ... Oh, wait, erh ...

What is this 'Christianity' OP refers to?

"An obscure Jewish cult, Caesar ..."

There is still a confusion between peoples faith and relationship to God with the Church institutions.

If all people see of Catholicism is child abuse you are intentionally ignoring the good work and constantly implying that those who are Catholic support child abuse. That’s a really offensive thing to say ( particularly as some Catholics will be the victims of that abuse). Many people are trying to make sense of the past.

There is something nasty and pernicious about all this that is being blithely passed off as genuine concern when there was absolutely no support for years for those who wanted to leave the RC Church. Even the Anglican community have apologised for not doing more to integrate Irish and Italian immigrants when they came in the 60s.

I don’t think those who are lashing out with the old cliches really know the full extent of the historical issues here yet are using them now to attack Christians. It speaks volumes to me.

@Notwavingbutsignalling I think for a lot of us our objections to religious organisations are not just about historic abuses but more about current ones - in particular their attitudes towards women, their overt support for regimes which persecute LGBT people (looking at you, Anglican communion and you, Russian Orthodox church) and their choice of doctrine over human decency.

As organisations they are of course free to make that choice - but then they and their adherents who support that choice should not be offended when they are criticised. Choices have consequences.

@pointythings

You can be part of a faith without agreeing with all elements of it. Most, I think, probably do. Same as every other large organisation - there will always be some who differ. How long really has it taken to get LGBT rights in this country?

I just think it is easy to read what is really been said on some comments here. There are terrible things happening across the world in the name of organised religion but for the focus to be on Christianity is shocking.

Where are the voices talking about human rights for Christians in parts of the world? If atheists and humanists care for humanity in the way they say, where are their outcries on that?

It just shrieks of something else to me.

#cakeorwine how do you decide which rules to live by?

The Christian life is not about wondering whether I ought to do this or that. It's living with the knowledge that even when I fail to live up to the standard, I am forgiven.

I think the problem is you put a post like this on and you just get the comments you're sick of hearing. Most people in the world have some sort of religious belief, it's not ridiculous and look at the rise in mindfulness, yoga, meditation.. often it's just replacing what you'd get in church. Genuflecting is great practice for a backward lunge 😂 Humour isn't a bad thing, father Ted, Derry Girls even the recent everyone must burn. I find them even funnier as someone of faith. It's lent, do your own thing and focus on your own relationship with God and your beliefs.

Are you sure you are forgiven?

How do you know someone is not watching you, adding up your points on your behaviour, and then deciding where you go?

I live my life by trying to do my best. There are things that I could do better.

I don't know where my rules came from. We live in a country where killing people is illegal. Where there are consequences. If there were no consequences, I would hope that I would not want to kill someone. But I am sure there would be some people who would kill others if it was legal.

some of the religious beliefs are ridiculous in Christianity.
In terms of charities, I work with deprived families and the food bank here is run by volunteers ( most aren’t Christian). Also CAP have not been helpful in most cases- they expect families to live off food parcels from the church while ploughing everything else into their debt, which makes them impoverished and beholden to others. Other charities such as Stepchange are far more helpful and arrange repayment at a manageable rate while giving families control of their own finances.

@Notwavingbutsignalling well, I can't speak for all atheists, but as I've said before on this thread, my condemnation is for all religious organisations that commot ongoing crimes against humanity, not just Christianity. Christianity is still the dominant religion in the UK (after 'no religion' in terms of numbers, but larger than Islam), and it has political influence through bishops sitting in the HoL, so it should be the chief target. I absolutely also challenge other faiths on these issues, as all atheists and humanists should.

If you are part of a faith, you absolutely should challenge those parts of it that you disagree with, however. And if you do not disagree with the oppression of women and the persecution of LGBT people then you earn my absolute disrespect as part of the institution.

I oppose the persecution of Christians in majority Islamic countries, just to be clear. I oppose the persecution of Muslims in Myanmar and China. But here in the UK, Christianity is where the political influence lies and that means it is a legitimate target for criticism of the way things are here in the UK.

You write of "confusion". I wonder who is confused here.

"... particularly as some Catholics will be the victims of that abuse," you say

Or, perhaps, putting matters another way round, "... particularly as so many victims of that abuse [me, for instance] are now ex-Catholics." "Offensive", you say? Yes I'm offended.

Thing is, you see (or at least one thing is, anyway), it is the Catholic faith that underpinned the abuse, rather than just the individual believers/perpetrators or, indeed, the institution of the Catholic Church. Something very similar goes for religious wars and other historical (and contemporary) horrors.

Matthew 7:20, 'By their fruits shall ye know them.' No?

As for those of you who ask where we are to get our moral rules from now God is dead, I suggest, first, a reading of Plato's Euthyphro.

-- Check out the eponymous dilemma there, expressed by Leibniz a couple of millennia later, "It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things."

Then? Well, if you are interested, read some Aristotle. Nichomachean Ethics a good place to start. Perhaps read some contemporary exponents of so-called 'Virtue Ethics', too; Rosalind Hursthouse is good, for instance (she has a nice piece in Stanford Encyclopedia). Or Philippa Foot, or ... oh, lots of people.

In short, you don't need Christianity or any other theism to be good; in fact history shows a commitment to theism is deleterious overall to its adherents as well as others.

tldr? ... (1) Christianity is a thoroughly bad thing; (2) theism cannot be the basis of an ethical life.

@sewexe

i genuinely sorry for your experience. I can understand completely why you see things the way you do and you have clearly found things in your life that give you strength and courage.

When you say ‘it is the Catholic faith that underpinned the abuse, rather than just the individual believers/perpetrators or, indeed, the institution of the Catholic Church.’ then I would argue that, no the faith doesn’t say that - someone has chosen to interpret it that way however in light of the clerical abuse and the way it was dealt with, it is easy to see why abuse was permitted. But nothing in the faith condones that - that the culture permitted it in places is something separate and completely distinct. That’s the failing of parishioners and clergy and all involved in protecting children.

But I realise that is all moot in the light of abuse and struggle with all of this myself. I don’t have the answers - I just know that somethings work for me on a certain level - they get me to the point where I can start to philosophise and contemplate things from a critical perspective. On balance whether it’s Leibniz or others, there is a whole world below that that needs to be staircased for some (usually in the poorest areas) and that is where faith and religion can do some good.

I don’t think Christianity can be separated from its institutions, well the Christianity people practice in general, because it was created and developed by those institutions, it doesn’t exist independently of them.

People need to look at the history of the early church, it was an exchange of ideas, competing interpretations, it brought in major concepts from what we now call middle Platonism, discussions in Alexandria in the 2nd-3rd century saw a huge exchange of ideas. The first mention of the canon wasn’t until mid 4th century, that’s hundreds of years of discussion between the many competing groups - think how much ideas and society had changed talks which took place in the equivalent time frame that has elapsed since just after Shakespeare to now! Christianity is the work of man not God. The rights and wrongs are more about social stability rather than some perennial concept of right and wrong. This is why many rights and wrongs are dynamic. The banning of homosexuality made sense when you wanted to up numbers of your tribe, it makes no sense now the drivers of that rule have gone. Ask yourself why churches want such a grip in probably the most private areas of peoples lives - their sex lives - the certainly wasn’t a unanimous approach to this in early Christianity. We associate these rules with the church but we could just as easily say society shaped the morals and ethics of Christianity. Most of these were of Greek and Hebrew origin which in turn were influenced by earlier societies. The Hellenistic empire created by the conquests of Alexander saw the spread of Greek ideas and assimilation of local cultures.

Religions are man made -that doesn’t exclude the existence of God or whatever you want to call it, but the rules and ideas set out by a religion are man made. Scripture has been translated reinterpreted. Things lost in translation both of words and culture.

Religion can have benefits for people, but don’t confuse the religion with your faith. Your faith is personal it doesn’t need any connection to the rules set out by the institutions the institutions are a mechanism of social control. They have no more access to God than you.

@OMG12

yes, I agree with you

I’ve been thinking how ethics are going to map onto AI? As AI develops and learns will it also develop independent ethics or will these need to be programmed purposely?

Floridi created a complete theoretical framework for using quantitative tools to map ethics.

To do so, he had to first create the philosophy of information, a whole new arena from which he could build a foundation ( from philosophy) that could situate ethics so that it could be applied to ai/computers.

Basically, we use the hierarchy we presently use to question ideas and give a ranking to different stratas of understanding - so a position resulting from a rudimentary understanding would not be positioned above a more in-depth understanding.

I probably haven’t explained that well but that’s the gist of it.

Is it ridicule, or is it legitimate questioning?

How would AI solve the trolley problem?

Relevant with self driving cars.
At least the AI won't know the people who might get hit

That’s really interesting- so the ethics of AI would need to be based on a quantitive assessment of pre existing human created ethics?

would it be more effective in analysing the position where there is a clash of ethics?

was a spectrum of ethics inputted? Will these develop over time, will it develop separately from human ethics or always rely on the input of humans?

sorry for the questions, I find the potential regarding AI simultaneously fascinating and horrifying