Negative aspects of Christianity rarely talked about, even by atheists

[emjay]

[Belacqua]

[emjay]

[Sheldon]

Just to get back on track then, negative aspects of Christianity, please note these are not claimed to be beliefs all Christians hold or act on in the pernicious way described. 

1. The tendency to cling to archaic moral diktat that is demonstrably pernicious, homophobia and chauvinism are just two prime examples. 
2. The idea no matter how subtle, that those who don't share their beliefs are going to be punished for it, and of course the gleeful way some look forward to it, and even in some cases start this supposedly posthumous torturing in the here and now. 
3. The tendency to imagine a particular version trumps, or more pointedly should trump, all others, and the sectarian divisions that are created and have so often resulted in violence. 
4. The antipathy (some have) towards objective methods like science because it neither needs nor evidences any deity, and the need therefor to denigrate it that can often be pernicious, denying objective biological facts like evolution for example, can have pernicious consequences like thwarting education vital to things like biological and pharmaceutical research, or like denying vital vaccination programmes as evil or whatnot, as another example.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Just to get back on track then, negative aspects of Christianity, please note these are not claimed to be beliefs all Christians hold or act on in the pernicious way described. 

1. The tendency to cling to archaic moral diktat that is demonstrably pernicious, homophobia and chauvinism are just two prime examples. 
2. The idea no matter how subtle, that those who don't share their beliefs are going to be punished for it, and of course the gleeful way some look forward to it, and even in some cases start this supposedly posthumous torturing in the here and now. 
3. The tendency to imagine a particular version trumps, or more pointedly should trump, all others, and the sectarian divisions that are created and have so often resulted in violence. 
4. The antipathy (some have) towards objective methods like science because it neither needs nor evidences any deity, and the need therefor to denigrate it that can often be pernicious, denying objective biological facts like evolution for example, can have pernicious consequences like thwarting education vital to things like biological and pharmaceutical research, or like denying vital vaccination programmes as evil or whatnot, as another example.

(Bold mine)



Boru

[emjay]

In yesterday's Buddhist meeting that I went to, the main subject of discussion was the 'Worldly Winds' praise and blame, with the Buddhist goal as always being to navigate through these winds, with more stability so to speak. So it was basically a bit of an analysis of that and what ultimately led to me replying further in this thread than I originally planned to. Basically lots of things came up in the discussion, like 'what's the difference between criticism and blame?', with one of the answers being given that one of the main differences is that blame is usually emotional whereas criticism can be intellectual... depending on how it's delivered, or received... ie, I suppose, as 'constructive criticism'. These were just people's opinions, nothing in stone, but one of them was that a more ideal and/or stable way to approach difficult discussions like this, about emotionally charged subjects like religion or politics, was a) to look for what you can bring to the situation, rather than take away from it, and b) to look for the underlying truth of whatever's going on in it, and with the general goal of promoting well-being all round whether through praise or blame... in this case, I'd take it to mean, replacing emotional blame with constructive criticism, and giving praise where it's due.

So with that in mind I probably shouldn't have been so blunt about not wanting to talk to that Christian than came in, largely out of emotional blame on my part, rather than the 'due' praise that what he was talking about, seemed at least a step up from what I was talking about... i.e. I was talking about the cases where Christians give no thanks whatsoever to anything other the god they believe in, but at least this guy was seeming to suggest that he actually does thank people, not just his believed in god, for their achievements... which is a step up, so thanks for that. Other than that, I still don't really want to talk about it, but nonetheless praise where it's due, so thanks for that; I wish more Christians gave due praise/gratitude to actual people, rather than just their believed in god.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

In yesterday's Buddhist meeting that I went to, the main subject of discussion was the 'Worldly Winds' praise and blame, with the Buddhist goal as always being to navigate through these winds, with more stability so to speak. So it was basically a bit of an analysis of that and what ultimately led to me replying further in this thread than I originally planned to. Basically lots of things came up in the discussion, like 'what's the difference between criticism and blame?', with one of the answers being given that one of the main differences is that blame is usually emotional whereas criticism can be intellectual... depending on how it's delivered, or received... ie, I suppose, as 'constructive criticism'. These were just people's opinions, nothing in stone, but one of them was that a more ideal and/or stable way to approach difficult discussions like this, about emotionally charged subjects like religion or politics, was a) to look for what you can bring to the situation, rather than take away from it, and b) to look for the underlying truth of whatever's going on in it, and with the general goal of promoting well-being all round whether through praise or blame... in this case, I'd take it to mean, replacing emotional blame with constructive criticism, and giving praise where it's due.

So with that in mind I probably shouldn't have been so blunt about not wanting to talk to that Christian than came in, largely out of emotional blame on my part, rather than the 'due' praise that what he was talking about, seemed at least a step up from what I was talking about... i.e. I was talking about the cases where Christians give no thanks whatsoever to anything other the god they believe in, but at least this guy was seeming to suggest that he actually does thank people, not just his believed in god, for their achievements... which is a step up, so thanks for that. Other than that, I still don't really want to talk about it, but nonetheless praise where it's due, so thanks for that; I wish more Christians gave due praise/gratitude to actual people, rather than just their believed in god.

(Bold mine)

When people boast about being Christian, it’s fun to ask them if they’re a Dolly Parton Christian or a Charlie Kirk Christian. 😉

Boru

[emjay]

In yesterday's Buddhist meeting that I went to, the main subject of discussion was the 'Worldly Winds' praise and blame, with the Buddhist goal as always being to navigate through these winds, with more stability so to speak. So it was basically a bit of an analysis of that and what ultimately led to me replying further in this thread than I originally planned to. Basically lots of things came up in the discussion, like 'what's the difference between criticism and blame?', with one of the answers being given that one of the main differences is that blame is usually emotional whereas criticism can be intellectual... depending on how it's delivered, or received... ie, I suppose, as 'constructive criticism'. These were just people's opinions, nothing in stone, but one of them was that a more ideal and/or stable way to approach difficult discussions like this, about emotionally charged subjects like religion or politics, was a) to look for what you can bring to the situation, rather than take away from it, and b) to look for the underlying truth of whatever's going on in it, and with the general goal of promoting well-being all round whether through praise or blame... in this case, I'd take it to mean, replacing emotional blame with constructive criticism, and giving praise where it's due.

So with that in mind I probably shouldn't have been so blunt about not wanting to talk to that Christian than came in, largely out of emotional blame on my part, rather than the 'due' praise that what he was talking about, seemed at least a step up from what I was talking about... i.e. I was talking about the cases where Christians give no thanks whatsoever to anything other the god they believe in, but at least this guy was seeming to suggest that he actually does thank people, not just his believed in god, for their achievements... which is a step up, so thanks for that. Other than that, I still don't really want to talk about it, but nonetheless praise where it's due, so thanks for that; I wish more Christians gave due praise/gratitude to actual people, rather than just their believed in god.

(Bold mine)

When people boast about being Christian, it’s fun to ask them if they’re a Dolly Parton Christian or a Charlie Kirk Christian. 😉

Boru

Well, that's the first mistake (my bold) lol... because there's nothing to boast about with that, whatever type of Christianity it is Same thing with Christian superiority complexes... completely meaningless to me. They may think they're superior, but that doesn't mean everyone else does, or anyone else for that matter, simple as that. Glad to get that off my chest. Anyway, sorry, rant-mode reactivated... I have to take this Buddhist approach in baby steps A lot of the Buddhists I meet actually speak very positively of Christianity, but I can't agree with them on that, and even the Buddha was well known for his openness towards all other religions, but again that's a bit of a big step for me.

[Kitan Etos]

When people boast about being Christian, it’s fun to ask them if they’re a Dolly Parton Christian or a Charlie Kirk Christian. 😉

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

(Bold mine)

When people boast about being Christian, it’s fun to ask them if they’re a Dolly Parton Christian or a Charlie Kirk Christian. 😉

Boru

Well, that's the first mistake (my bold) lol... because there's nothing to boast about with that, whatever type of Christianity it is Same thing with Christian superiority complexes... completely meaningless to me. They may think they're superior, but that doesn't mean everyone else does, or anyone else for that matter, simple as that. Glad to get that off my chest. Anyway, sorry, rant-mode reactivated... I have to take this Buddhist approach in baby steps A lot of the Buddhists I meet actually speak very positively of Christianity, but I can't agree with them on that, and even the Buddha was well known for his openness towards all other religions, but again that's a bit of a big step for me.

That puts me in mind of Gandhi’s answer when he was asked how he felt about Christianity: ‘I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.’

Boru