Christian Grans

I became a Christian after studying the New Testament in my teens (there are no other Christians in my family). I didn't attend a church until more than two years later and when I did I came to realise that 'church' as we understand it now is very different to the picture painted in the New Testament. Many, many years have passed since then and I now am part of what, in Christian circles, would be described as' emerging church'. My faith is encouraged and informed by people such as Danielle Strickland, Shane Claiborne,
Steve Chalk and Andrew Marin. The letter penned by Shane Claiborne (below) echoes many of my own thoughts and feelings.
www.esquire.com/features/best-and-brightest-2009/shane-claiborne-1209

Lilygran, if more believers wanted to post, they would! You can't really expect those of us who really enjoy these discussions to stop posting because some other people don't want to post. Nobody owns any thread - many of mine have been 'hi-jacked' but I don't complain.
Atheism is a 'stance for living' or a philosophy of life, just as much as religion. Please don't try to exclude any group of members from any thread - that is hardly a good advert for Christian inclusivity!

It could well be argued that it is the atheists who are continually subject to attack, just for stating our beliefs, but we don't complain. We are all adults and capable of stating our opinions without taking offence when people disagree with us.

Thank you activist for the interesting link. What I read into his article is that we should not judge christianity by what the majority of christians do (because he sees a lot of it as unacceptable - quite rightly) but we should listen to his version of christianity.
I am sure I do not need to explain the problem for those of us looking in on all this. We are to ignore all that has been done in the name of christianity and listen only to those christians whose moral standpoint accords with ours.
He cannot have it all ways - either christianity is a force for good or it has and does create huge problems and conflict.
It is precisely this corruptibility of religions that concerns me - they are menifest through the greeds/prejudices of people and this is their danger.

Absent I don't think your analogy is exact. Perhaps if most of the posts on the 'Health' thread are knocking doctors, it might be. I haven't looked at the OPs on all the threads. I will. I did do a very back-of-a-fag-packet investigation into the posts on this thread and found a majority 2/3 were actually anti-religion.

Lily - please don't confuse anti-religion with absence of faith - they are not the same thing. People do have serious concerns about religion - I am sure it is obvious why - but that does not mean that they do not recognise some of the benign and positive aspects.

Oxfam, Christian Aid, care for others in their community - let us clock them up as plusses for christianity. But do not forget repression, global conflict, guilt, fundamentalism etc.

Greatnan I think some Christians would feel intimidated by what might appear to them to be quite hostile responses to expressions of faith. I have said elsewhere on this forum that while you non-believers enjoy the cut and thrust of what you think of as purely intellectual debate, it means something rather different to believers. I have come across this phenomenon in a number of real life, not virtual, contexts. You would not believe the animosity that is expressed towards members of faiths, Christian more than others, in some workplaces, for example. It puts people off engaging in debate or discussion.

Yes, I read the link and agreed with the general gist of it. But I must point out that my lack of belief in a god is not because of the bad things that have been done in the name of religion, nor will I begin to believe because I meet some very good, decent people who are believers. It is quite irrelevant to my atheism whether certain people or churches are good or evil - nothing could make me believe in a supernatural being, just as nothing could make me believe in fairies.
Certainly, the first cracks in my catholic faith were caused because I began to question some of the truly horrible things I was taught at school - original sin, purgatory, a blood sacrifice. I then went on to study and discuss, not just Christianity, but other religions and came to the mature conclusion that it is all a con-trick played upon the masses by a few powerful people as a way of controlling them. In the total lack of any evidence of a good, or even an indifferent, supreme being, I choose not to believe. If anybody else chooses to believe, whether for emotional comfort or other reasons, that is entirely up to them - as long as they don't try to influence legislation which it is incumbent on me to obey.
This is my sincerely held belief, to which I am entitled and it is not intended to insult anyone else (although I expect some people will take it that way!)
If you are very sure of your faith, you will not be in the least bit bothered by my opinions, any more than I am bothered by yours, so why complain about them?

Thanks ga that's an interesting article and i could identify with much of what he says. I share that philosophy of being open to learning something from people from all walks of life. It's just that I don't attribute any of that to a god. Similarly, I don't attribute all the bad things that happen in the name of religion to people who do believe in a god. It's the corruptibility of individuals and groups within churches and non-religious organisations that gets to me, and we have discussed different organisations here on Gransnet several times. As this thread is under Religion and Spirituality, we're on the issue of Christians. If it was a Health or Politics forum, I doubt we'd touch on Christianity. Greed and prejudice can be found anywhere, sadly.

Mishap I'm sure what you say applies to you but I'm also sure I am not mistaken in seeing hostility and a degree of triumphalism in some posts. The good things you mentioned are outweighed entirely in some posters views by the bad things, some of which happened centuries ago.

Lilygran I haven't checked but I would make an educated guess that praising doctors isn't a massive topic on the Health thread. Health and well-being/ill health and sickness being far more likely subjects. The analogy is a reasonably fair one.

Meanwhile, as has been endlessly pointed out, religion affects everyone in society regardless of whether they have faith. Talking about it is not the prerogative of those who have faith.

Lilygran can you say more about this part of your post, please?

'.........while you non-believers enjoy the cut and thrust of what you think of as purely intellectual debate, it means something rather different to believers.'

I, personally, don't regard the debate as purely intellectual, and I have Christian friends who relish that aspect of the debate. Can you explain what is somethnig rather different for believers, please?

I suspect that, in the current political climate, Moslems encounter far more hostility towards them than Christians ever do in this country. Orthodox Jews encounter extreme aggression and hatred too.

There has been no hostility towards any member in any post. You are confusing issues with organised religion with personal hostility against individual believers - and I am disappointed as I thought you were more than able to hold your own without making such accusations.
My very outspoken hostility towards organised religions is not based on what they did in the past, but on the evils they are inflicting now throughout the world, with their condemnation of homosexuals, and especially the catholic ban on contraception, abortion and divorce. My hostility towards other religions is based on their treatment of women as the property of men.

Triumphalism? What have we got to be triumphant about?

It is interesting that what might almost be termed apologists for Christianity seem to be followers of St James – who appears to put good works before faith. "Faith by itself, if it has no work, is dead." Whereas the central doctrine of St Paul, who usually trumps everyone else, was justification by faith alone.

email from GD who has just started Secondary school.

Hellooo Grandma
I wondered if you could quickly help with my homework!!!! for RE I need to make a survey on 10 friends or family of their philosophy of life so wanted to know what yours is:

Hedonist: life is full of fun and pleasure
Humanist: life is thinking of others and not yourself
Religionist: life is doing what god wants you to
Materialist: life is about gadgets and clothes etc
Nihilist: life is pointless!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Existentialist: life is what you make of it

pick the one that you are and tell me. I need to know as soon as possible

Decided I am Existentialist -never knew that.
Also added that I am a reverent agnostic with Buddhist leanings.-
That might cause some discussion as it is a RC school!

How would you answer your grandchildren?

By these criteria, I would say existentialist/humanist, but I'm not sure about those definitions!

None of those! Humanist, but that is not a good definition. I can't say I live for other people, although I do care deeply about injustice and oppression.
I don't believe life is what you make it - most people with serious illnesses have not done anything to deserve them.
I am deeply suspicious when schools ask children to reveal such private information about their families - why do they want to know? If it is a catholic school, it is quite likely that some parents claimed to be devout catholics just to their children into the school.

Just read fairly quickly through what has been said on here since my last post. For me, arguing about religion is nothing to do with the goodness or otherwise of religious people; it's to do with what I believe and what others believe and why we believe what we do believe. I want to analyse what makes people believe certain things as opposed to other things. Anyone who insists that they are being attacked because their beliefs are being argued with is just using that as a device to make people who disagree with them stop arguing. It's a classic tricksy debating tactic.

I suggest that anyone who thinks atheists should not talk about theism on a forum entitled Religon and Spirituality should get in touch with gransnet HQ and ask for and Atheism and Agnosticism and Religious Argument forum title and then they can avoid looking at what they know will be diabolical personal attacks arguments about beliefs and belief systems and what makes people tick with regard to theism or a lack of theism.

And this all started because I tried to define secularism for someone who did not use the word in a way I had understood it to have meaning. Yeesh!

Absent I think it's because so much emphasis has been placed by the non-believers on religious bad stuff that the ripostes have emphasised good stuff. For what it's worth, I believe in salvation through grace. And of course, you are right that Moslems and Jews are likely to suffer more and more overt hostility. Doesn't mean Christians don't. Greatnan you keep,on saying there are no attacks on individuals, just on people's beliefs and opinions. Yes, I agree with that. And when I talk about hostility and animosity I am talking about hostility and animosity towards people's beliefs and opinions. when it's because it is faith, not just opinion. I once compared it to being gay or straight ; it's a far more fundamental aspect of yourself than an opinion.

Lily gran - there is a problem of language here for me. What does salvation through grace mean I wonder? Saved from what and for what? And what is your definition of grace?

A previous poster talked of being "washed in the blood of the lamb"..Jesus died for me etc. To a non-believer it is not even possible to translate this language - it has no meaning at all.

I have to say that I find the whole "death cult" aspect of christianity distasteful. I often wodner how ther cross as a symbol can be so pervasive - it is basically an instrument of torture and murder - would we worship an icon of an electric chair?

I say these things not to attack believers but to illustrate how meaningless it all is to someone who takes a rationalist stance.

Mishap you are right. It is very difficult to discuss faith unless you have a common vocabulary.

Thanks Lilygran. I think we do need a common vocabulary. Being gay or straight doesn't compare in the debate, for me. One is born with a sexual orientation that will out despite environment, whereas religion is socially constructed and a child will learn to conform to the prevailing religion they grow up with, until they begin to think through for themselves whether to accept it or not. I do agree that sexual orientation is a fundamental part of oneself, but for me that's where it parts company with one's religion or lack of belief. Not being provocative or personal, I promise

Lily, I have said exactly why I am hostile to organised religion and I am afraid I cannot withdraw a single word of it. Would you prefer me to pretend to opinions I do not actually hold? Or to make no contribution to the discussion? Of course I am hostile to attitudes which I believe are totally wrong and which cause great pain.
I am glad you accept that there has been no hostility towards individuals.

It's certainly not my place to ask you to change, Greatnan. I understand why you are hostile to Christianity. I hope you understand that the expectation of hostility might put people off joining the debate.