I'd echo putin in that much of Western civilization is based upon Christ's teachings, but I'd add that personally I find Christ's message to be a very good way to live life. The idea of moving away from selfishness (not that it's unique to Christianity) toward a love that would inevitably allow me to lay down my life for my neighbor is certainly appealing. Within Christ's word I am forced to acknowledge that I'm a flawed individual and that I'm surrounded by lots of other flawed individuals; but I have to love them in the same way that I hope they love me.

I'm also and atheist, but I was raised in a baptist church. Jesus' message is pretty cool. There are alot of high points and interesting parables. The thing that I think slips through the cracks, is the humility part. Being humble is so underrated in America, even though we are supposed to have judeochristian values, which I would argue, stand strongly in favor of humility.

@Timmi, so you are an atheist because you grew up around too many arrogant hypocrites?

Who are the arrogant hypocrites, ag?

The arrogant hypocrites are the baptists, I think, from Timmi's example.

To that I agree; not that Baptists in general are arrogant hypocrites, but the church is failingly horribly. This is not suprising to a Christian, but it is saddening. We (believers and non) are plagued by selfishness, pride, and the lot of sin. Where shall we turn but to the perfect sacrifice of atonement? Who but Jesus is mighty to save?

I was guessing how Timmi went from being raised Baptist to being Atheist, and we curious his transition. My guess was arrogant hypocrites, from his 'humility' focus.

Yes, I agree about the church itself being really hypoctritical. That's why I don't believe in having churches to worship the Lord

"a love that would inevitably allow me to lay down my life for my neighbor is certainly appealing."

Unless your neighbor is gay or a demon-worshiper. Christianity and the message of Christ has done some good things, but there seem to many contradictions when practiced by a majority (note: not all) of the Christian world. For example, the largest and most predominant argument against homosexuality, and the most intolerance comes from, Christians.

And I won't go into details on this one, a single word says it all - Crusades.

No one, and no religion, is perfect. Unless preaching all-encompassing love, but practicing bias and hatred towards certain groups is as perfect as people can hope for.

Hi pyromancer,

I agree that many people do not put Christ's teachings into effect as they should (I'm one of them), but that does nothing to invalidate the teachings themselves.

Admittedly there have been atrocities committed by Christians. The same can be said for atheists, but such actions do not reflect of Christianity or atheism. Nationalism has claimed more lives over the past century than in recorded history. Regrettably people kill one another for any collection of reasons and for no reason at all. Christians are not unique in this nor are they the worst offenders. In essence it's pretty common to invoke the Crusades, or the Inquisition, while ignoring the tremendous good done through charities and missions that are sponsored through churches. Ask yourself this though. When was the last time you met a Crusader (in the armored and weaponed up sense, or Inquisitor with authority to torture). I'd bet though that you've met quite a few Christians that spend time helping out others though, even if they aren't prefect in their conduct. As for torture chambers, there have been quite a few of those in officially atheistic countries as well. I do not hold any atheist here present responsible for this and would appreciate the same consideration.

As for homophobia, there is no causation there. It exists outside of Christendom and predates it. While there are some verses catergorizing homosexuality as a sin, there are many other sins including working on the sabbath. To my way of thinking allowing one sin to be my primary focus is a sure way to blind myself to all the others.

Hi again,

sorry in rereading that it came across as caustic and it wasn't intended to be so. I told I'm one of those that doesn't put Christ's teachings into practice near the way I should. I do try to own up to my flaws though. With the bit about Crusades and such, though it's just far too common to say that one word as if that really just seals the debate about organized religion. It really only reflects the fact that when organized people have the ability to do really great or really terrible things. The only logical response is to keep people from organizing into groups at all to prevent the bad aspects, but in so doing we give up the good.

*** I told 'ya I'm not....***

sorry for all the typos tonight.

The idea that Christianity is the most intolerant religion towards gays is not true in the slightest. Name a Christian country that executes gays or even criminalizes LGBTQ sexuality. I can name several Islamic countries that do.

Also, this tread is about Jesus specifically, and his philosophy and teachings, not about misinterpretations of those teachings. I don't think that there's any recorded statement by Jesus about homosexuality being evil, nor did he encourage war.

I'd personally say that Jesus was a positive influence, promoting the idea of God not hating people of different races and cultures, among other things.

I have found that being raised in a Russian orthodox family and pracitcing lent going to church every Sunday drove me away from religon because when you think of it most of the stuff taught is don't break the law in the end and all the rituals (communion for example as well as lent) can be a load of bullshit so really I think that following christainity is good but going to church is really unneeded

Whether he did not encourage war may be so, but he certainly was not altogether against violence either. Asc a young man, he lashed the money-changers out of the Temple, didn't he? Quite poignant actually, in view of today's "money-changers" i.e. the greedy bonus-addicted bankers and their generally perceived place in society's esteem (i.e. lack thereof). Who says Jesus's messages are not applicable to this time, right? For the record, though, even though I was raised Protestant Christian, I am now a convinced Atheist.

"Name a Christian country that executes gays or even criminalizes LGBTQ sexuality."

Jamaica, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Nauru. There are probably some African countries that I left out.
I'm Australian and it wasn't that long ago that it was illegal in Tasmania and Queensland.

In none of the above countries to they execute gays, but it is illegal, and often the persecution quite severe.

Some small islands, ok... Regardless, a good majority of Islamic countries criminalize LGBTQ identity, and several of them execute gays.

It is unfathomable to me the idea that you can believe without being a part of a community of believers or respecting tradition. As if religion was nothing more than another self-help program and the Bible was a self-help book, and being a Christian or any other faith was made to be as easy as possible. It's not supposed to be easy or convenient.

It is interesting to me this trend of every individual interpreting the Bible for themselves, of everyone designating themselves their own Pope who is the final authority on Biblical interpretation, and that somehow the Bible can be interpreted completely separate from tradition. Without tradition no clear sense can be made of the Bible. And if I were a Christian, I'd trust the word of the descendants/appointees of the Apostles about how the Bible *should* be interpreted more than a self-designated Bible "expert".

Tradition= Rather than making my own wild guesses I'll listen to the equally wild guesses made by someone 1000 years ago and interpret them as absolute truth.
LOL

"Wild guesses" that were initially made by the people closest to the living Jesus Christ and which have persisted from the days of the Early Church until today, yes.

here is what I don't understand. Why do people care if other people believe in something different then them? Does it make them feel insecure about their beliefs?

> Roman paganism
It was Rome that first established Christianity though, right? :-|

Jesus' teachings has its good parts and its bad parts, just like Buddha (Sidarthur?), Mohamed, Gandhi, Einstein, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc, etc. Noone should think any one person is right about everything imo

@ jmo

Many believe that matters of faith cannot be equated to matters of personal taste, akin to people's favorite foods and colors. One could make comparisons as to why people believe others should "think like they" by explaining why people believe others should obey the law. If others do not abide by the laws of the higher power than this points to a societal malaise. Since people are social beings, what other people do has very real consequences for everyone as an individual.

Modern society has made us become extreme individualists who believe everything should be a "choice" and that no one has the right to command an individual to do anything that is against the individual's will, up to and including matters of family and basic social relations. So families are nothing more than "contracts", that can be terminated at will and that even commanding people to fulfill their obligations to be loyal to their family is "tyranny".

@ kestasjk

Yes, Rome first established Christianity. But had it not been for Christianity, Rome would likely have remained pagan.

If pagan means non-Christian, then yes had it not been for Christianity Rome would have remained pagan

I don't mean non-Christian, but whatever precise term you call the Roman religion prior to 380. I thought it was generally referred to as paganism.

yes we have become a society based on laws which values freedom of the individual above all, above governmental controls and taxation, above religious/community/family wishes, with money being the only limiting factor for what an individual can do.

This is a consequence of developing a society which encourages free trade and commerce, that cities world-wide allow a huge range of services and goods to be traded by individuals almost anonymously, without regard to reputation or cultural background. It has in many ways encouraged education, and understanding of other cultures, helped ideas pass which have improved the entire world in many practical and economic ways. It has many downsides aswell - like human trafficing - but overall i think the world is better off.

paganism
1. a hedonistic spirit or attitude in moral or religious matters.
2. the beliefs and practices of pagans, especially polytheists.

While ancient Romans did practice polytheism, Rome in the time of Christ and just before it worshipped their emperor as a god. This is called the Imperialistic Cult.

Whatever, I don't want to quibble over the term paganism. It's not an important point. The greater point is the values of Rome prior to its adoption of Christianity were repugnant. Attempts to revive these values (most notably by 20th century fascists and the followers of Nietzsche - they did not adopt the Roman salute and imperialist cultish "paganism" by accident) have led to horrifying results.

@Orathaic

I understand the economic reasons behind the rise of the Enlightenment and the hegemony of individualism and liberalism. I was only trying to explain "why" many believe religious faith is not entirely a matter of personal taste.

I would argue though that individualism has lead to a malaise with certain fundamental institutions like the family which have disintegrated at a high rate, and that the disintegration of the family has a very very strong correlation with crime and other anti-social behavior. In my view I don't find the liberal era quite so benign, nor the idea that people would resist the idea that liberalism and individualism cannot be questioned very shocking.

@putin: i would agree that this liberalism has allowed dysfunctional families to break up, that there is some malaise within society, but I don't agree that this neccessarily means things were better before.

When married women had no choice but to stick with their partner, things could have been far worse for them. Individuals could have become stuck in family situations which they fell trapping, depressing and even abusive.

I do agree with you that humans are better off living in communities, a communism of individuals who know each other, and choose to work to help each other can and does work in some places. And feeling a part of a group whether religious or secular, family based or state created does make people more likely to be productive, safe and happy.

I disagree that 'the family' as the basic building block of society, is the only and best solution; but i do agree that pure liberalism has many painful downsides.

For sure, I do not mean to suggest that prior to the liberalization of divorce, all families were content and there weren't numerous cases of abuse. However, marriage has become nothing more than a theatrical display, more about enjoying an event/experience than a solemn commitment and union of families. Family is seen to be largely irrelevant, it is now a matter of individual "love", with people deciding on a whim that they are in "love" and wanting to make some kind of dramatic gesture by marrying that person. It's not about building families anymore, it's about collecting tax breaks and inheritance rights. It's about show biz and lavish parties. It has more in common with a dinner date than familial relations. Having a baby is now like buying a pet. People pump themselves full of drugs and turn themselves into human test tubes in order to have the "experience". Once the responsibility is too much to bear, they want to return the "pet" to the shelter or find any way out of their obligations.

Reform of family law is well and good, but what has happened is not reform, it is destruction. We disagree as to the extent to which this phenomenon is damaging to the social good.

People cannot "choose" their communities, they are born into them. Babies are immediately given an identity by their community, they don't have a "choice" in the matter. You cannot choose your community any more than you can choose which parents gave birth to you. There is no such thing as a social contract. The individualists are wrong when they assert that everything can be left up to choice, voluntarism, and reason.

@putin, I don't think we disagree about the extent of the damage - though i do not think the things you describe happen in my community to the same extent, Ireland is a different country - but i do think you are underestimating the benifits of individualism.

Never-the-less, you are right that community is important and that there are cases where liberalism does much damage to the social good. (though that is a difficult thing to define) And that as with anything there is good and bad which comes from it, and taking an extreme line results in diminishing returns for the good and ignores the bad effects as neligible.

People can't choose the family they are born into, however parents can choose the community in which they raise their children.

Adult can choose the community they live in, and it is possible in many cases to exclude yourself from social problems and any community, and to live in brick houses with large fences to keep out the poor (as they may steal from you) when by making them feel seperate from you, you are infact encouraging them to feel different to you, and indifferent toward you, instead of building your community...

The social contract is real whether spoken or unspoken, and when you enunciate what is expected of individuals, and what isoffered to them, they find it easier to work within any community or group.

It is what is expected behaviour, and it's enunciation helps reduce misunderstanding and disagreement.

So i agree that many laws reflect only individual interests, and i beleive the individuals could give up their own freedoms to live together in closer-knit communities without the need to apply those rules to everyone.

@op: sorry to be so off topic, please accept my most sincere apologies....

@pantalone

As far as Jesus embracing violence, I've gone back to the gospels on that (NIV Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; and Luke 19:45-46) I can only find that he "drove out" the those who were exchanging merchandise and money in the Temple. All that it specifically says he did was turn a few tables over which hardly counts as any serious act of violence. I'm not sure where you got him lashing them. Not that I think I've got a lock on biblical knowledge. I just couldn't find it where I'd have expected it to be.

It seems more like an instance of civil disobediance than a violent protest to me.

if i recall the story of jesus and the money lenders, it was when he was 12 and he got anrgy. It showed he was human and had the same failings as the rest of us, (getting angry at the money lenders for running a bussiness in his father's house) It wasn't used as an example for others to live their lives by.

now my teachings may not be in any way related to what is actually in the bible, but that is how i remember that story.

There is a similar account when he was 12 (or so): he went with his parents to the Temple for the first time. He did not get angry that first time (money changers were not even mentioned); but he did wandered away from his parents to enter the Temple. When his parents found that he was missing they were on the way home and rushed back to the Temple to find him surrounded by elders amazed that he had such a grasp of the Scriptures at such a young age. When his frantic parents asked "Why did you run off" he answered "Did you not know that I'd be in my Father's House".

I do not believe that the actions on the Temple mount (driving out the moneychangers) were either violent or sinful. The people on the mount were robbing the faithful by charging astronomical rates. He had a right to be mad, and getting angry at injustce is not sinful.

I haven't checked any sources on this post so it might be terribly inaccurate.

Because I need them to pass my exams?

o.O

@ orathaic

Went back to check those accounts. It sounds like you're remembering Luke 2:41-52 (it's pretty close to my summary).

@pantalone

Okay I found the whip, but he didn't use it on the moneychangers. John 2:13-19 It states that he fashioned a whip from cords and used it to drive out the sheep and cattle & then says that he overturned the moneychangers' tables and scattered their coins.

I know it seems overkill, but I was just curious about the assertion that he was not averse to violence when so much of his message is specifically non-violent. I see nothing in Christ's actions that wouldn't be in line with Ghandi or MLK jr., etc.

@Gobbledydook

Quote from Godspell

"Readin' every line and every last commandment may not help ya', but it couldn't hurt."

I skimmed (read the first five to ten posts) and figured I'd offer my thoughts.

I don't particularly value Christ's teachings. (And ironically I consider myself a Christian, but that's more because I enjoy going to church vs. actually believing the doctrine) But one thing that I do particularly value is the "turn the other cheek" mentality. The world really needs a bit more apathy. If people didn't care so much about things, we'd all be so much happier.

One thing that I very much disagree with though is "unconditional love". Love is the expression of value, and when you assign the emotion love to things that you do not value, (A murderer for example) you cheapen your values, because you claim to find value in something that has no value. It is this principle that I disagree with most in Christian philosophy.

I will say, as a mitigating statement, that I have no problem with loving the potential in someone, although that's a bit hokey. By the fact that we are all human (And, unlike most, I mean something more like perfection when I say human, not helplessly flawed) we have the potential to change, and said murderer can stop murdering.

I value the ability Jesus has to make me come buckets.