That's a good question, and it's hard to answer. I know every part of you just wants to drop further consideration and point the finger - it's the easy way out. And I'm not saying I'm above this, as I do it myself, too!

With the spread of this knowledge to others, I'd hope we could come to some kind of solution. That, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction. Instead of debating the cause of the problem, let's just work to find a solution to the acknowledged problem.

Any ideas from anyone would be welcomed.

Fair question, boagie. It is misguided because the supposed entity, Christianity, did not act - the individual claiming to represent Christianity acted, and it is that individual who is responsible.

Someone claiming to act in the name of Christianity makes the same mistake found in your arguments - they assume Christianity to be a unified whole. They assume one person can speak or act for all. In reality, Christianity is no more a unified whole than coffee drinkers; no surprise that even coffee drinkers prefer different blends. If I take my coffee black, others might still prefer cream - and I certainly have no authority to claim that black coffee is best, much less the authority to make such a claim on behalf of all coffee drinkers.

The alternative is to actually address those responsible, instead of wasting time pointing fingers at abstract labels. We can take them head on instead of getting bogged down in senseless ideological battles.

Take, for example, the guy who wrote 'Darwin's Black Box'. Scientists criticized his work; they did not make protracted accusations against an entire faith tradition. In this way we do not alienate those in the faith tradition who are innocent (in the case of science, people like myself who promote scientific inquiry over any religious doctrine, including those doctrines I subscribe to), and we also educate by addressing the real problems, the specific erroneous claims of the author.

I'm fine with that, as long as he isn't implying that there is something wrong with hypocrisy, which, again, would be a moral judgment you couldn't make from a nihilist perspective.

You are changing the argument here. You made a statement about the common denominator of what it means to be a Christian. And to simply regard Jesus' teachings as having some value is frankly an insufficient standard -- that is, if the word "Christian" is to have any specificity.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel |Video Tutorials |Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

"How you get so big eating food of this kind?" -Yoda

Honestly Boagie, it seems what really frustrates you is human ignorance and its consequences. And I share the sentiment, but also see that it is not a problem to be solved.

To answer the inquiry of who do we blame, we blame no one, but rather we allow the momentum of our ideas seep into the public conciousness and shape the world, so is the way of intellectual influence. New thoughts influence further up in the academic chain and then they become validated, and it is many years before they fully set in, and when it comes to such things as new world views and philosophies taking hold, why you look at many decades. I am convinced that it is simply impatience when taken in perspective. Governments are social experiments waitng for a reset after some overload point and once the smoke clears, a new better society is build from the ruins. Eventually logic may be the religion of the people, but it can only be so through time and perhaps a bit of tyrrany, as any religion, and as any religion, ignorance of the people might be exploited, although the nature of the religion might be contradicted in doing so, but such is true of all religions.

I am not so sure your problem can be adressed as such.

Yes, this is what I was hinting at earlier. What then does the word, "Christianity" mean? Shouldn't it have some standards, which make the label what it is? Otherwise, it will just be so ambiguous it will make the usage pointless.

Didy, to tell you the truth, (even with the disclaimer that I don't even enjoy using these sticky labels) you don't sound like any Christian I've ever come across, ever. I mean, you support science, state that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, and then only call yourself a Christian on the basis that you value some of Jesus' teachings. By no means is this a personal attack, I'm just curious as to how you've come to your conclusion. Ultimately, you can label, call yourself whatever you want, but know that it may cause confusion. And in this case, it most certainly is.

You view the problem of human ignorance to be a problem that can't be solved, and perhaps shouldn't even be addressed? It'd be very disheartening if that were the case as that is what I ultimately strive for - that's what I was hoping to dedicate the rest of my life to. You're right, though, it's possible this problem is far beyond our comprehension. One solution may very well not be a solution at all, and may just bring pain to others, further increasing ignorance.

But I will try anyway.

Had to go back a few pages for this one.

But I do not see why a Christian must demand that others consider his scripture to be 'the best' in order to be a Christian.

The problem is casting the net wide enough to encompass all Christians. You're right, 'some value' does seem insufficient.

You say:
"But they were not Christians if they didn't have some prioritized regard for the divinity of Jesus himself, of his story (at least allegorically) or at least the divinity of his teaching."

And I agree that a Christian would look to the teachings of Jesus, at least as their primary source of spiritual guidance. I'm cautious to use the word divine because Christians can have such different views on the nature of Jesus - I'm not even convinced that one must accept the historical existence of Jesus to be a Christian.

Well, supporting science and being critical of the Bible is not entirely un-Christian. For some Christians, it's the work of the devil. For other Christians, it's a responsibility.

I consider myself a Christian because I find value in some of the material attributed to Jesus. I'm not so sure about all of the material attributed to him; the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas represent my canon, I suppose.

I understand the confusion. If your nation only raised golden retriever dogs, and I brought a shi-tzu you may wonder if the creature is a dog at all.

There will always be those who are behind the curve and those ahead of the curve, it is the heterogenous nature of humans. That being said, those who by nature or virtue stay ahdead of the curve deserve good information and good teachers to help put it in their heads. If you wish to provide this, zetherin, I applaud you, however, my applause comes with a caveat; do not fret over the insurmountable depth of any persons apathy nor their ignorance, for it is not your place to change them.

Divinity is certainly applicable to allegorical figures. Most people don't accept the historical existence of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, Lot, Job, etc. Sure, they could be mythologized amalgamations of what were once real people -- like Odysseus and Arjuna, for instance. But you can still be a Jew without believing in the literal Adam and Eve. And the historical Jesus is immaterial to Christian doctrine anyway.

__________________
Forum Links: Rules | User Control Panel |Video Tutorials |Blogs | Social Groups | FAQs

"How you get so big eating food of this kind?" -Yoda