Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 30 Nov 2002 18:10:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2217 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes:
> 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?
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 position?
> > > 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've decided to pick a story you have chosen to illustrate my answer, but the
BT is down at the moment-- I'll respond later.
> 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?
Well, Christian evangelism isn't about discrediting. Evangelism is spreading
the Gospel, or Good News, that God loves everybody and desires to be in
personal relationship with everyone. It is a message that is independent of
other beliefs; it is believed that this proclamation of the Gospel, or Kerygma,
will speak to people's heart via the work of the Holy Spirit.
> 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?
This is an issue in the Church. Certainly if attempts are made, the approach
is very delicate-- often nothing more than education, medical assistance, and
aid for years before any conversion attempts are made.
> Should I not appreciate any Christian-themed art just because it could be
> construed as an attempt to discredit my atheist beliefs?
Of course you can. Again, I don't think there is an implicit desire to
discredit in such things as Christian-themed art, but merely the desire to
glorify one's own God. It may be a witness to you, but not an attempt to
convert you (necessarily). But if you feel somehow manipulated by any piece of
Christian-themed art, you actually may not be able to appreciate it.
> > > 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?
You mean like the Church did;-) That isn't quite analagous, because we
certainly can't be certain about any beliefs whether they are silly or not as
we can that slavery is evil.
> 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?
No, because now you are in the realm of science, where the scientic method
rules.
> Is the latter example different because it is 'religious'?
Yes, because if it were a question of faith, then by definition it wouldn't be
under the scrutiny of science.
<snip>
> > 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.
I shouldn't have said that I would question someone's Christianity. I did say
that nobody is perfect, not even Christians, and to expect that is a little
much. Many times Christians don't act *Christ-like*, and so questioning bad
behavior of Christians by Christians (or whomever) is not only right, it is
taught.
> 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?
No, it is not, and here is why. You only paint a dark side of the Bible. If
you really were interested in presenting the Bible, you would do so in a fair
and balanced way. You have some vested interest in depicting the Bible in a
negative light, which is the response I believe you hope to elicit. So if the
postive and negative aren't portrayed, then the BT merely becomes your little
propaganda tool.
> > 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?
I have no problem with Judaism; I don't know that much about Hinduism to really
comment, but no complaints so far; I have a big problem with the way some are
interpreting Islam; I wasn't aware of any "beliefs" of atheists (unless you
call "disbelief" a "belief", in which case I have no problem with that).
> Could
> Christianity have spread the way it has if its followers did not try to
> discredit the existing religious beliefs of others?
It is my belief that Christianity spread via the work of the Holy Spirit
*despite* the incompetency of the Church and all of its evils.
> 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.
Let me put it this way. I believe that following the teachings of Jesus Christ
will lead one to live the fullest and most content life one can, and it is my
desire that everyone lead the fullest and most content life they can.
Many are unfulfilled in life, and are ripe for the Gospel. Many *think* they
are fulfilled, but will some day find that they are actually not, and they,
too, will be ripe for the Gospel. Some appear truly fulfilled and appear to
stay truly fulfilled-- I don't know the deal on that.
> 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.
One must answer to Science, the other doesn't.
> > > 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?
Partially because it is out of LEGO (a crucified minifig does tend to minimize
the significance of the event), and not so much because it is presented *by* an
atheist, but the *way* it is presented.
> 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?
lol Sounds like a rather ambitious goal. Are you asking for a review?:-)
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I don't feel it is is necessary to change everyone to my point of view, and in fact, it wouldn't particularly bother me if no one's religious views were ever changed by The Brick Testament. It would at best be a small comfort to know that (...) (22 years ago, 1-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
