Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2002 23:14:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2027 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Well, therein lies part of your problem-- you cannot ever really assert this.
A lot of what I wrote in my last post was aimed at getting you to look at
this situation from my prespective. In essence, the question was, what
would you do if it was *you* who were convinced that the religion of
everyone around you was silly. If you are not willing to accept that it can
even be asserted that the beliefs of Christianity are silly, this is going
to be more difficult. That's why I made up Rooism. Would you also say that
it cannot be asserted that the beliefs of Rooism are silly? Can *any*
beliefs be asserted as silly? If so, what makes Christian beliefs specially
protected?
> > Would it
> > then be worthwhile to help show them this?
>
> Perhaps, but in the guise of holding them yourself? You mention Ministers
> contacting you about wanting to use the BT for Sunday school, etc. Do you
> really think that they would be asking if they realized that your real
> intention of the BT was to discredit their religion?
I don't think my site *has* to be looked at as an attempt to discredit
Judaism or Christianity. If you believe these Bible stories to be sacred,
why should my generally true-to-the-text illustrations of them not be
celebrated, no matter what my motives?
I don't know if you encourage evangelism, but certainly this is how
Christianity has spread throughout the world. And what is evangelism if not
the discrediting of other people's beliefs while espousing those of
Christianity? Should there be no attempts made to alter the religious
beliefs that people already hold because it is always impolite to attempt to
discredit them?
Should I not appreciate any Christian-themed art just because it could be
construed as an attempt to discredit my atheist beliefs?
> > Imagine for a moment that you were born in a country where 90% of the people
> > were of a religion that you considered silly. You didn't dismiss the
> > religion out of hand -- in fact, you yourself believed in it for quite some
> > time, but after a deeper inspection, you found that its basic precepts just
> > didn't make any sense, and the morals it promoted were highly questionable.
> > What would you do in this sort of situation? Your parents, your close
> > friends, your teachers -- all of them are believers in this religion you
> > find ridiculous, and yet they take it very seriously. So seriously that it
> > affects their whole lives. And so many people are of this religion that it
> > affects society in general. Would you never attempt to show these people,
> > even people you care about, your outsider's perspective on their religious
> > beliefs with a glimmer of hope that they could see how silly they really are?
>
> Don't you see the arrogance of this? Everyone is wrong, but *I* am correct? I
> realize that you grew up in a Christian environment and have concluded that
> Christianity is silly, and that's fine. Why then try and convince everyone
> else that it is silly?
If you were born at a time and place in this country when slave owning was
accepted without question, would you find it arrogant if someone tried to
convince everyone else that it was immoral and cruel?
Likewise, would it be arrogant for someone to claim that it is ridiculous to
believe in a talking Kangaroo who came to Earth in a spaceship 3,000 years ago?
Is the latter example different because it is 'religious'?
> Did someone tell *you* that it was silly?
I don't think so. I was aware at the time that there was such a thing as
non-Christians, and even atheists, but I don't remember anyone making a case
for me that the beliefs of Christianity were silly.
> What you are
> failing to realize is that the most powerful galvanizing forces to beliefs are
> persecution and mockery. You may actually be accomplishing exactly opposite of
> what you intend.
I'm not entirely convinced this is true. While persecution can have that
effect on some people, it is not universally true. While the Nazi
concentration camps did not erradicate the faith of all the Jews who
survived them, I understand it made for a fair amount of atheists.
The early Christian church was also quite effective in squashing the rival
versions of Christianity that had spread thoughout the Mediterreanean.
Persecution did not make the Marcionites stronger. It destroyed them forever.
> But if you *really* want to indict a religion, don't attack its beliefs, attack
> the *actions* of its followers; how the religion's ideals are manifested.
This has never seemed particularly effective to me. As we saw earlier,
Christians are quick to dismiss fellow Christians as "not really Christians"
when their questionable behavior or policies are brought to light. This
side-step is too often used, and so I find it more interesting to
investigate the foundations of the religion in question.
> There really is no traction in attacking that which cannot be proven one way or
> the other.
I would disagree with you that all religious beliefs cannot be proved one
way or the other, but let's leave that issue aside for now. Here's an
example of how The Brick Testament might be worthwhile for a Christian:
Joe Christian was brought up as a Christian, but has never read the Bible.
He has some understanding of what his church believes to be good and right,
but is not familiar with the bases of these beliefs. He then views the
illustrated stories of The Brick Testament and sees how harsh, callous,
vengeful, merciless and unloving God is presented as being in the Bible, and
how the message and teachings of Jesus and his apostles are much more
unclear, morally questionable, and strange than he has been lead to believe
in all his years of church. This results in him taking a closer look at the
Bible and what he believes on his own.
Is the above scenario not worthwhile, no matter the end result?
> Brendan, I am a Christian and even *I* think that some beliefs held by *my
> fellow Christians* are bizarre and silly. But I am not concerned about
> convincing them to believe exactly as I do; as long as we can agree on the big
> picture, I am fine with that. And for some Christians (I included), the
> picture can get pretty big. It's about respect.
Do you respect the beliefs of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc? Could
Christianity have spread the way it has if its followers did not try to
discredit the existing religious beliefs of others?
> Very well may be. What if you linked the BT off of your home page? Do you
> think that that would affect your statistics?
The Brick Testament *is* linked to from my homepage. There's a permanent
link to it on the lefthand side, and whenever I update The Brick Testament,
it is generally my top news story. The Brick Testament also links back to
my homepage. I make no attempt to hide one site from the other.
> > Could you really resist illustrating the story of Maury the Kangaroo getting
> > pantsed by the ancient French? Even if 90% of the population considered the
> > story extremely sacred?
>
> Well, *I* could:-)
If you are truly a non-evangelical Christian, great. And if you would never
attempt to discredit anyone else's religious beliefs, no matter how
ludicrous they seemed to you, even upon close examination, great. I guess
what I don't fully understand is why silly religious beliefs should not be
questioned while silly non-religious beliefs are open season. Either can
potentially be very dangerous.
> > To be honest, I'm surprised at how relatively few negative reactions I've
> > received about The Brick Testament.
>
> I think it is because your motives are unclear. People (Christians) assume you
> are doing it in good faith, as it were, and not as a form of criticism. Look
> at poor Scott-- he felt ambushed. I'll bet that reaction would be common.
I don't have any evidence that it is a common reaction. I have much more
evidence that many Christians, such as the others who have posted to this
thread, realize where I am coming from and still greatly enjoy the site.
> Speaking for me, I would say that, in general, you are trivializing something
> that I find sacred, which is basically displaying a lack of respect for my
> beliefs. But I, OTOH, must respect your decision to create the BT, but I don't
> have to particularily like it.
Is it trivializing the sacred because it's the Bible in LEGO, or just
because it's the Bible as presented by an atheist?
You've indicated that it may have something to do with the "controversial"
parts of the Bible that I have chosen to illustrate. Keep in mind that I
have now illustrated about 90% of Genesis and about 70% of Exodus (wih more
to come). Will you still feel this way when I have illustrated a majority
of the entire Bible?
-Rev. Smith
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I don't deny that they seem silly *to you* and, as I mentioned before, that is fine, but I'm still wondering what the movitation is that makes you feel it necessary to change everyone to your POV-- to perhaps feel better about your own (...) (22 years ago, 30-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Well, therein lies part of your problem-- you cannot ever really assert this. (...) Perhaps, but in the guise of holding them yourself? You mention Ministers contacting you about wanting to use the BT for Sunday school, etc. Do you really (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
