... (0 comments)
I got to talking with a friend of mine yesterday (a gay Catholic – explain that one to me) and happened upon one of my oldest and most favorite grievances. Shitty Christians.
As everyone knows by now, I’m a pretty rabid antitheist. But just because I generally dislike religion and all its accoutrements doesn’t mean that there aren’t gradations in my animus toward a belief in God.
After all, some religionists (e.g. Mother Theresa) genuinely embrace the tenets of what they claim to believe in and employ that belief to a better end (e.g. helping sick people).
However, there is an enormous amount of really shitty Christians out there. I mean “really shitty” in the sense of (a) they have no fucking clue what they really believe in, (b) don’t adhere to generally any of the tenets that they claim to believe in, and (c) employ their quasi-belief to bad ends.
For example, how many adulterous, premarital-sex-having liars can you think of that really hate gay people?
I rest my case.
I could go on for hours on this topic but the main thrust is that it doesn’t piss me off as much to be faced by a Christian who (a) is actually knowledgeable about their religion (with such knowledge not coming from the likes of megachurch hucksters like Creflo Dollar and Joel freaking Osteen), (b) abides by the actual tenets of their chosen religion, and (c) puts their belief to good ends.
Who doesn’t like the sight of a cute lil’ Amish buggy strolling down the road once in a while? They’re just so precious.
The other kind of Christian I mentioned before is a million times more irritating.
Anyway, that’s my tirade for the morning. I’m thinking about writing a book along these lines, entitled:
“You’re A Shitty Christian And God Hates You”
Catchy?
Edit: Hmm, what about this version:
You’re A Shitty Christian.
P.S. God Hates You.
P.S. God Hates You.
-
schu says:
Interesting, but it still underlines one my basic points, that you cannot scientifically prove the existence, or none existence of God because you cannot have a test case. And we all would get along better if the extremists that the media labels christian were called to task for their non-christian beliefs and actions.
Leave a Reply
Fast Food
Unhinged vagina-shackler on Komen’s volte face:Cancer is Cancer! Aboration is Aboration!
(0 comments)Since it’s Mitt Romney week everywhere, I figured I’d post this op-ed by an ex-Mormon, which is a pretty interesting take at the institutional culture of the LDS church. Not much to say about it, but it’s definitely worth 5 or so minutes of your time. (0 comments)Why Bipartisanship Is Impossible, In One Sentence
When one party climbs back to power by promising action on the economy, does nothing on it, and instead spends literally all its time trying to hurt the other party. (0 comments)New From The Gingrich-Cain Front
Newt rants about cable movies he doesn’t like, and flips out when Herman tries to seize control. Catch all the fun here. And the main site is here, as always. (0 comments)Headline of the Week: Making Rapeanade
Leave it to TBogg:
(0 comments)Rick Santorum Suggests That When Life Gives You Rape, You Should Make Rapeanade Back when I was in junior high and the Clinton Impeachment was going on, I could hardly have imagined that Clinton would be used as an excuse for wrongdoing by Republican leaders. But that’s where we are. Interesting, isn’t it? (0 comments)Catch up with the official Gingrich-Cain “Great Statesmen” series over at @GingrichCain12. (0 comments)Only 65% of White Americans Have a Favorable Opinion of MLK Jr
…with a whimper. Drum is worth reading on this. I think he’s just got to be the most overhyped and overcovered guy who never managed better than third place since…Joe Lieberman? (0 comments)Mitt Romney's Overwhelming Inauthenticity
It’s amazing to me that Mitt Romney brings up France as a scary comparison point to himself so often when he spent years there and speaks the language. It’s such a minor point, but telling. Of all the people running for president, Mitt Romney has to be the most aware that the rightwing caricature of ... (0 comments)Mother Teresa Doesn't Deserve Sainthood
Case in point. It’s amazing how all the famous/respected Catholic figures from the 1990s have turned out to be incredibly corrupt, isn’t it? I’m sure they’re somehow connected. Of course, as I’m a Protestant I know little about such things. (1 comments)I Fixed It! Ban Sitting Politicians From Running For Another Office
Wonkette reminded me of one of the provisions that I want to write into my fantasy Constitution:No person who holds any elected office shall be permitted to seek election to any other office until he shall have permanently vacated his current post.
(2 comments)The Kardashians want their own magazine?
Unintentionally hilarious: “Bachmann, 55, told a small group of supporters Tuesday night that she was staying in the presidential race…”What other kind of group of Bachmann supporters could there be?(0 comments)Santorum Finishes #2, Sliding Down In The Final Minutes To Lose To Romney
I was really hoping that Santorum would win the Iowa caucuses. The disgustingly puerile humor would have lasted for WEEKS! (0 comments)Good stuff: The National Labor Relations Board announced on Wednesday that it had adopted new rules that would speed up unionization elections, its last major policy decision before it drops to two members and can no longer make new decisions. It approved the rules in a 2-to-1 vote. The labor board said the new rules, which have ... (0 comments)A Dinosaur Infringed On A Patent For Rocks...
Reading this lead-in to an article today made me think of cavemen and dinosaurs:“The long-running antitrust suit Novell filed regarding Microsoft’s alleged tactics to prevent WordPerfect from running properly in Windows 95 seemed to be on the verge of conclusion…”
... (0 comments)
(DOWN THE VINE
Syndication
Please read up on Mother Teresa, she is not such a shining example:
Christopher Hitchens was the only witness called by the Vatican to give evidence against Mother Teresa's beatification and canonization process [...]. Hitchens has argued that "her intention was not to help people"[...]. “It was by talking to her that I discovered, and she assured me, that she wasn't working to alleviate poverty,” says Hitchens. “She was working to expand the number of Catholics. She said, ‘I'm not a social worker. I don't do it for this reason. I do it for Christ. I do it for the church.’"
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa
you have to love hitch. the guy has such immense balls. i hope to someday be in a place where i can speak in the vatican against a beatification. awesome!
to the substance, i understand where you're coming from and generally HATE aggressive proselytizing in the guise of charity. that said, there is something to be said for the good effects of a perhaps corrupted motivation. at any rate, she's far less irritating than, e.g., Joel Osteen :)
Of course she does it to glory God but it the results of what she does that is important. How many of you social workers do it for the money? How many of them would live in the conditions that these people lived in. And if they did does that mean that they did it only for the love of money? Like statistics, short line quotes can be twisted to prove anything. One of my major themes has been on the labeling of some religious leaders as Christian because they say they are but who cannot live the life, walk the walk, are even talk the talk.
The key point is "she wasn't working to alleviate poverty". And not only did she not intend to do so, she didn't. She thought poverty and sickness were a gift from God, a great opportunity to show your faith. Sure, in a way this is walking the walk. But people should realize which walk it is.
And it really isn't only this quote. More from Wikipedia:
Her philosophy and implementation have faced some criticism. David Scott wrote that Mother Teresa limited herself to keeping people alive rather than tackling poverty itself.[33] She has also been criticized for her view on suffering: according to an article in the Alberta Report, she felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus.[34] The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press, notably The Lancet and the British Medical Journal, which reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an approach to illness and suffering that precluded the use of many elements of modern medical care, such as systematic diagnosis.[35] Dr. Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet, [...] observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment.[36]
Yes, she gave people a roof over the head. But the notion that she contributed to reducing poverty or disease is not based in reality.
"For example, how many adulterous, premarital-sex-having liars can you think of that really hate gay people?"
Plenty. And they are all fundamentalist Christians. And a lot of them are in Congress.
Oops. Disregard this. A second after I submitted it I understood what you were saying.
Too damn early in the morning to think straight.
ha! you came to realize my super ninja snark ;-)
when i first got on facebook one of my 'christian' relatives said she was going to unfriend me since i didn't have a relationship with christ(im a pagan)….my only reply was how christian of you…
just the kind of intolerance that the baby jeebus would love!!
I can relate to that. You can chose your friends but you are given your relatives.
Interesting. I never saw this perspective. Thanks for enlightening us.
Sigh, you keep harping about how she wasn't working to alleviate poverty, why do you think she was? The Catholic Church does not want to make her a saint because she "alleviated poverty" but because she was a role model for them in working to bring the poor to her church. The Catholic Church does not care about alleviating the poor or they would not keep such obscene amount of wealth in their coffers to blind the masses. If you want to attack her and the church for what they do, fine. But it works better if you attack them for what they are not doing rather than what you perceive that they should do.
Jann you have an interesting perspective. I've always admired and cherished Mother Teresa as one of the great humans of all time. If there was a heaven she would probably be the only human I've ever heard of that actually deserved to go there. I think she did a tremendous amount of good in her life that overcomes the disservice she did by pushing Christianity. On the other hand though she was actually living life the way that Jesus taught by tending to the poor. I've always felt that if you were going to call yourself a Christian you should at least follow Jesus' teachings. I don't think he ever called for the elimination of poverty. Probably never occurred to him (if there ever was a real Jesus) or the people who wrote the gospels that these things were possible.
The slip you are making of course is the same as theirs, namely, that you claim to know what God's mind is by saying "God hates you". To me, as an non-US agnostic protestant, any claim to know God's mind is blasphemous. It doesn't offend me by the way, since you don't believe in God, blasphemy has nothing on you and I am sure you are not trying to offend me, since you don't know me or my beliefs.
Which leads me to the second slip you are making whic is that you appear to have a fixed idea in your mind about what a christian should believe (e.g. the ref to your gay catholic friend) and then you hold them to your beliefs about their belief and imply they're inconsistent? I find this rather dogmatic.
Anyway, I completely share your sentiments about fundies, any fundies, be they christian, muslim, atheist or whatever.
Cheers.
i see what you're saying although (1) "god hates you" was meant as more of a literary statement. i do not of course believe in god so certainly don't actually believe that god hates anyone, because i ultimately don't believe that a god exists. (2) i don't have any fixed notion of what a good christian should be; what i am asking is for christians to hold christians to the standard of christianity that they themselves profess to believe in, e.g., don't lie (because you say you believe in the commandments), don't have sex before marriage (because you say you believe in the bible) etc.
I agree wit your point about Christians holding other Christians to the standards of Christianity. One of my major points in my observations is that the media wants to identify anyone who declares themselves a Christian as a Christian. They do not ask for verification of their status. The Mormon Church, the Jehovah Witness are not Christian because the do not believe that Christ died for the redemption of their sins. And the believe that only a certain number of people can be saved. But the media calls them Christian. Most of the people who post on this board are not Christian, but that is fine since they do not call themselves Christian. While it is true that we are not perfect and we are always striving to reach a Christ like life it is a bit much to be claiming to be the spokesman for family values while working on ones third marriage.
"what i am asking is for christians to hold christians to the standard of christianity that they themselves profess to believe in, e.g., don't lie (because you say you believe in the commandments), don't have sex before marriage (because you say you believe in the bible) etc."
See? that is what I meant with what you believe what christians should believe in. I don't adhere to what you just professed I should believe in, and I am a Christian. :)
Thanks for replying.
then you're ok i suppose, although i understand that sex before marriage is pretty bad in the eyes of many christians (as with the lying).
p.s. you're welcome, glad to have you here!
By the way God does not hate anyone, but views a lot of human behavior with a great deal of sorrow. Those who claim that "God Hates (fill in the blank)" speak for the devil.
I really have to say how great it is to have such a reasonable-mindedchristian like you on Library Grape. We've collected quite aninteresting mix of folks here, no? Would you ever be interested indoing a guest post once in a while?
Might after I survive college level algebra! If I can learn how to write an APA paper, last years achievement, I surely can learn how to do a guest post. One of the major positions on my faith is that a persons belief in God, or his lack of belief, is between that person and God. There is no room for a Pope, the Saints, a council, a church, a politician, etc. This means that you must study and examine you beliefs regularly, and that you do not always find yourself in agreement with the mainstream, especially if they are following a charismatic leader with faulty theology and a personal agenda.
If I can say so, this country needs a lot more humble, caring andrational christians like you
We are out there, and there are a lot of us. But we are not news worthy. Most of us do not believe in rocking the boat, We try to live the life that the Lord shower us in our hearts to live. Since such dull every day activities are general boring the news does not cover us. But look at the food banks, the shelters, the church benefits and you will find us working steadily behind the curtains. The court advocates, Habitat for Humanity, etc. While I do not personally agree with the Salvation Army they do good work. While I have huge theological differences with the Roman Catholic Church I do have to admire the priest that works the street helping the common man with his problems. We do not need the televangelists that collect millions and keep 40 to 50% for living expenses. Power and money corrupt everything that it touches, and without a church board to over see them they always seem to become corrupted. .
WiseMonkey ventures into Atheistland to see what wisdom he can glean from its inhabitants.
[youtube CLsanX4ZMxQ