So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[Zombie_61]

...I've gotta say, Christians are some of the most judgmental and intolerant people around.

Based on my experiences and most of the Christians I've known, I'd say this is quite accurate. But I'd temper that by saying Christians are like any other group of like-minded individuals--some are overly gung-ho, some are overly casual, and the majority fall somewhere in-between those extremes. But then, Christians are human, and thereby imperfect.

 

[Edward]

And then there are those whose social/political perspectives may as well be religions — not subject to reason. Far too often far too many people with whom I generally agree get so ********* self-righteous and cop such a superior tone that I am tempted to slap them. Their inflated sense of themselves blinds them to how they are perceived by others.

Too many on my side of the aisle alienate those who should be natural allies by, well, insulting them. “Virtue signaling,” the opposition calls it. That’s a fitting description.

Talk is cheap.

It's certainly a very human attribute - its presence outside of any religious context very much bears witness to that!

Biblical literalism was very much a minority, niche view in the America of eighty years ago, when mainline denominations held sway -- and it didn't start to mainstream until after WWII. Much of what is taught today as "Christianity" would have been unrecognizable as such to the average American of 1941.

The biggest mistake one can make, religiously speaking, is to assume that all has always been as it now seems to be. And the second biggest mistake is not to realize how faith can be marketed, for particular purposes, just as efficiently as any other commercial article of merchandise.

The interesting thing I have found in recent years is how what I hear from some quarters (such as Dawkins et al) about "what Christianity is" is very much not reflective of my personal experience - but all the same I can see examples of it out there. It seems that the notion that Biblical Literalism and Creationism and such, beyond their minority status across the Christian church at large, are the version that gets most or sometimes all of the publicity, so I guess if that's all people have experienced of it... I do sometimes wonder why those are the standard representation, though - easiest to dismiss? loudest voices? Something else?

What I do have something against is the suggestion made by too many that without a belief in a deity a person can have no firm moral foundation. It’s such a juvenile perspective, this need for a heavenly father figure who rewards good deeds and punishes bad ones, without whom a person might think it’s okay to behave in clearly antisocial ways. Big Daddy up in the sky might just condemn you to an eternity of suffering should you canoodle with your neighbor’s wife or steal his livestock or, apparently worse yet, judging by its prominence in the Ten Commandments, fail to adore and glorify Big Daddy himself.

As believer, it certainly has always been anathema to me to suggest that those who don't choose the faith path have no morality at all. IT's patently untrue, as I see so often.

That said, there's still, I believe, something to be said for the concept of an objective morality, wherever that comes from, rather than solely the self - probably the lawyer in me talking there (social contract theory).

I have no time at all for this rot about telling people the Divine loves them, and then threatening them with a Hell based on folk tales and Dante while claiming it to be Biblical (the Bible itself carries nothing in support of the kind of fire and brimstone hell so beloved of a certain type).

Based on my experiences and most of the Christians I've known, I'd say this is quite accurate. But I'd temper that by saying Christians are like any other group of like-minded individuals--some are overly gung-ho, some are overly casual, and the majority fall somewhere in-between those extremes. But then, Christians are human, and thereby imperfect.

Your last line is absolutely key. Christians are a lot like Vegans, really. Some are more committed than others, some talk about nothing else, some like to tell you you're wrong for not being one, while others are vegan because they believe in the cause, but aren't obnoxious about it, you might never know from anything they say directly - and all points in between.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The interesting thing I have found in recent years is how what I hear from some quarters (such as Dawkins et al) about "what Christianity is" is very much not reflective of my personal experience - but all the same I can see examples of it out there. It seems that the notion that Biblical Literalism and Creationism and such, beyond their minority status across the Christian church at large, are the version that gets most or sometimes all of the publicity, so I guess if that's all people have experienced of it... I do sometimes wonder why those are the standard representation, though - easiest to dismiss? loudest voices? Something else?

In America at least -- and in fact, does hard-shell literalistic fundamentalism have any real influence anywhere *but* in America? -- the rise of such beliefs goes hand in hand with the rise of nativist populism in the late 19th century and the rise of corporate anti-New Dealism in the late 1930s. It might not sound like a logical combination, but if you take a close look at who was promoting such beliefs, and how they did so, you see that they actually served the same master.

The mainstreaming of such beliefs after WWII couldn't have happened without the rise of television, and specifically, of one man -- Billy Graham, a dynamic and eminently photogenic speaker who understood the power of television better than just about any other media figure of his time. And he also understood how to use modern marketing methods thru all other forms of mass media to get his message across. That message placed heavy emphasis on "the individual" as the central figure of its theology, with the matter of "individual, personal salvation" and "a personal relationship with God" tying in very neatly with the National Association of Manufacturer's promotion of "rugged American individualism" in politics as opposed to the "collectivism" of the New Deal. The NAM, thru its Religion in American Life program, promoted Graham's style of theology to the hilt, and its leaders were very happy to associate themselves with Graham's ministry. Graham may have been "the pastor to Presidents," but before that he was the "pastor to corporate presidents," without whose support he would not have become the national figure that he became.

Another component of Graham's theology was his promotion of Scofieldian "dispensationalism," the belief that human history is a succession of Biblically-prophesied "ages," and that we are in the final days of "the Gospel Age," where the role of the Church is to evangelize the message of "the last days." There was no place in Graham's theology for the "social gospel" of the early 20th Century, the idea that the role of the Church was to reflect Christ's compassion for the poor and oppressed. The present world was seen as ending soon, and there was no point in "reforming" it -- therefore, the appropriate action to be taken toward the poor and oppressed was to preach to them, not to feed or clothe or politically aid them.

These beliefs got a serious boost in the mid-1970s in the works of Hal Lindsey, whose "The Late Great Planet Earth" was all over paperback bookstands, and which took the dispensationalist interpretation of Revelation and made it a part of mainstream popular culture -- which fit right in with the paranormal craze of the time. It was this promotion of dispensationalism that set postwar evangelicalism apart from pre-WWII fundamentalism, and led, eventually, toward modern "dominionism," which teaches that the role of the Church is to "prepare the way for the Lord" by converting the entire world, and the United States in particular as "God's Chosen Nation," by whatever means necessary, to theocratic rule.

These forms of "Christianity," the dispensationalist and the dominionist, have been, since the 1980s, the most activist variations of belief in the United States -- with the dominionists, in particular, having made considerable inroads in the political sphere. And that's why the word "Christianity" has taken on the particular shading that it has taken on over the past forty years.

 

[tonyb]

...

That said, there's still, I believe, something to be said for the concept of an objective morality, wherever that comes from, rather than solely the self - probably the lawyer in me talking there (social contract theory).
...

I don’t know that it’s “objective morality” so much as normative values. A society without a common sense of proper behavior among its individual members is no kind of society at all. There will always be those who don’t subscribe, for better (reformers) or for worse (murderers, thieves, lawyers, etc.). But we must, through our families and civic institutions, foster faith in one another’s fundamental agreement to abide by a basic set of acceptable behaviors. Churches once filled that role, and to varying degrees in varying places they still do.

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

Hey! What happened to the "trivial"?
This thread has gone astray.

 

[tonyb]

^^^^^
Okay, how ’bout this ...

In my online noodling this morning, searching for the name of a pitchwoman in a TV commercial, I learned that the marketing departments would have us call the hawkers “brand ambassadors.”

 

[Edward]

Hey! What happened to the "trivial"?
This thread has gone astray.

Ha, we gone got all deep on you!

To bring it back on track, I'm sick to the back teeth of flippin' Friends nostalgia. It was bad enough when it was a current show, let's not bring it back. Plus who thought it was a good idea to give even more media attention to James Corden???? Gah.

 

[Edward]

^^^^^
Okay, how ’bout this ...

In my online noodling this morning, searching for the name of a pitchwoman in a TV commercial, I learned that the marketing departments would have us call the hawkers “brand ambassadors.”

That's the fancy name for a Social Influencer when they're not on the interwebz.

 

[Hercule]

Hey! What happened to the "trivial"?
This thread has gone astray.

Quite the buzzkill aren't you! It had to happen sooner or later.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Back in another life when I had to go to trade shows, "brand ambassadors" were those waxen-faced automatons who stood behind tables handing out key chains and novelty rubber balls printed with the logos of companies that would be defunct and forgotten within six weeks. I always felt sorry for them, but then I looked close and realized most of them were already dead anyway.

 

[tonyb]

^^^^^
In my thrift store/garage sale forays out Seattle way a couple of decades back it was common to come across tote bags and polo shirts and travel mugs and the like bearing the logos of tech startups that never got past the startup phase.

I suspect it was Microsoft millionaires (you couldn’t swing a cat without hitting half a dozen of ’em back then) who figured if Microsoft could strike gold then they could do it, too.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Back in another life when I had to go to trade shows, "brand ambassadors" were those waxen-faced automatons who stood behind tables handing out key chains and novelty rubber balls printed with the logos of companies that would be defunct and forgotten within six weeks. I always felt sorry for them, but then I looked close and realized most of them were already dead anyway.

Dated a girl a long, long time ago who thought that she had a divine mandate to micromanage my then- embryonic legal career. She really knew little about the law or the dynamics of a law firm's operations, but she certainly was convinced otherwise.

Her degree was in "Communications." I've always wondered what a degree in that area was really good for. Passing out samples at trade shows seems to cover it. Last I heard she was selling time shares. And so it goes.

 

[tonyb]

...

Her degree was in "Communications." I've always wondered what a degree in that area was really good for. Passing out samples at trade shows seems to cover it. Last I heard she was selling time shares. And so it goes.

Gotta major in something, and communications is easier than physics. That’s a part of what had me in the communications department.

 

[Bushman]

I've gotta say, Christians are some of the most judgmental and intolerant people around.

Reminds me of the quote "I love Jesus, it's his fanclub that I can't stand." I want to say it was George Carlin, but I can't find any concrete attribution to a singular person.

Every cat I've ever known, looked at me as if I'm the stupid one

Who says we aren't? We slave away all day so that the cat can live a better life than us.

But foremost, I think faith is a very private thing that evolves in people over time. Preaching at people and hitting them over the head with it is generally counterproductive. No one likes to be lectured or takes kindly to it, and understandably so. The people who have impacted me the most over the years were those who quietly led by example.

Incidentally, the Jesus of the Bible preached precisely this: organized religion is a sham more concerned with playing politics and with silly traditions that have real no basis in deity worship. To Jesus, the God/human relationship was a private matter that didn't need to be practiced in synagogues or amphitheaters. There's a reason Jesus preached to the masses on docks and in the streets, instead of at the pulpit, he could actually speak with REAL people there. I feel like the Bibiclical Jesus would have readily accepted George Carlin's 11th Commandment: "thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."

 

[GHT]

Who says we aren't? We slave away all day so that the cat can live a better life than us.

Surely you know that dogs have owners. Cats have staff.

 

[Benny Holiday]

Reminds me of the quote "I love Jesus, it's his fanclub that I can't stand." I want to say it was George Carlin, but I can't find any concrete attribution to a singular person.

Who says we aren't? We slave away all day so that the cat can live a better life than us.

Incidentally, the Jesus of the Bible preached precisely this: organized religion is a sham more concerned with playing politics and with silly traditions that have real no basis in deity worship. To Jesus, the God/human relationship was a private matter that didn't need to be practiced in synagogues or amphitheaters. There's a reason Jesus preached to the masses on docks and in the streets, instead of at the pulpit, he could actually speak with REAL people there. I feel like the Bibiclical Jesus would have readily accepted George Carlin's 11th Commandment: "thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."

I have to respectfully disagree on various points. Jesus was, to put it more accurately, against legalism, in which following the rituals and teachings of the Mosaic Law had replaced the true meaning of what Yahweh had intended Judaism to be about - living out the ideals of love to God and love to your fellow man. He never said He was against organised religion - indeed, the entire religion was organised by Yahweh in the Torah to point to the coming of the Messiah and His mission. The Sanctuary services, for instance, especially the sacrificing of a "lamb without blemish" represented Christ, as did the instruments found in the Sanctuary, eg. the altar of incense represented prayer, the laver represented baptism, the showbread represented the Messiah as the Bread of Life, and so on.

What Jesus took issue with was the twisting of the religion into a socio-political structure far removed from a mission of serving those who needed it most. He took the cold-hearted religious leaders to task for such legalism. Matthew 23:23: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others."

Nowhere does the Bible say that organised religion is a bad thing, indeed, the apostles organised the Church to better be able to serve the needs of the sick, poor, orphaned and widowed. It's when people lose sight of that mission and think that by blindly following ritual they can save themselves that religion loses its way. While the wealthy priests and rulers grew conceited by their money and their influence, and felt they had need of nothing, Jesus spent time with the common people because their lack of conceit and openness made them more accessible to His teachings and encouragement. (Not all the priestly caste were like that, though, there were some who followed Jesus and took what He said to heart).

 

[ChrisB]

The present world was seen as ending soon, and there was no point in "reforming" it -- therefore, the appropriate action to be taken toward the poor and oppressed was to preach to them, not to feed or clothe or politically aid them.

Long-haired preachers come out every night
Try to tell you what’s wrong and what’s right
But when asked about something to eat
They will answer in voices so sweet

You will eat, bye and bye
In that glorious land above the sky
Work and pray, live on hay
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die (that’s a lie)

-Joe Hill, “The Preacher and the Slave”

 

[Edward]

Incidentally, the Jesus of the Bible preached precisely this: organized religion is a sham more concerned with playing politics and with silly traditions that have real no basis in deity worship. To Jesus, the God/human relationship was a private matter that didn't need to be practiced in synagogues or amphitheaters. There's a reason Jesus preached to the masses on docks and in the streets, instead of at the pulpit, he could actually speak with REAL people there. I feel like the Bibiclical Jesus would have readily accepted George Carlin's 11th Commandment: "thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."

Much as the Bible itself is a human record of the history of a faith and its peoples' attempts to understand their Divine, I do find it striking that what is recorded of Christ's life does appear to give us far less preaching, in proportion, to Him actually living out the principles he promoted. I'm sure that's no accident.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Are many doctor's offices doing the forbidden prepared "blank-prescriptons" to save time, in your countries, too?

 

[LizzieMaine]

There are certainly "prescription mill" doctors here -- they do a big business in handing out medical-marijuana cards, ED prescriptions, and, until fairly recently, opioids. The law, however, has been cracking down rather heavily on cases of the latter, due to mass opioid addictions over the past twenty years or so.