Agnosticism

@dru I see your point. But unfortunately some agnostics are wishy-washy ;)

@pravda I also see your point. But, the thing is we're also taught that we're not perfect. To suggest that someone who is a Christian is "supposed to be a shining beacon of God's love and acceptance" comes across as judgmental to me because we can't ever expect to live up to that expectation realistically. We can try our hardest but that doesn't mean we won't say things that we probably shouldn't. We're human. Also. We're not meant to judge as Christians. Not just the turn the other cheek thing, but the speck vs log verses are relevant here.

The Pies Endure:

@dru I see your point. But unfortunately some agnostics are wishy-washy ;)

As are some Christians, Buddhists, Catholics, Wiccans, Atheists, etc. She came in the thread and told people to make up their minds because to not have their minds made up was 'wishy-washy'. She was not commenting on some agnostics, but the entire definition of agnosticism. She was saying not to know/believe/not believe means you are wishy washy. And that's name-calling, not a mundane generalization about a group within a group.

does dru walk away?:

As are some Christians, Buddhists, Catholics, Wiccans, Atheists, etc. She came in the thread and told people to make up their minds because to not have their minds made up was 'wishy-washy'. She was not commenting on some agnostics, but the entire definition of agnosticism. She was saying not to know/believe/not believe means you are wishy washy. And that's name-calling, not a mundane generalization about a group within a group.

Ahhh well I still didn't read her post that way. But, I guess sometimes I'm a little critical of people who don't believe...>.> And that's something I'm trying to work on.

The Pies Endure:

@pravda I also see your point. But, the thing is we're also taught that we're not perfect. To suggest that someone who is a Christian is "supposed to be a shining beacon of God's love and acceptance" comes across as judgmental to me because we can't ever expect to live up to that expectation realistically. We can try our hardest but that doesn't mean we won't say things that we probably shouldn't. We're human. Also. We're not meant to judge as Christians. Not just the turn the other cheek thing, but the speck vs log verses are relevant here.

And agnostics are only human; if it was a 'fair' comment to come and call agnostics 'wishy-washy', without specifying that she was referring to a minority of agnostics to whom such a statement was fair/applicable, then it is equally fair to respond by making a massive (and seemingly unfair) generalisation against Christians.

If the latter does not seem fair it is because the former is not.

I never said it was fair.

The Pies Endure:

I never said it was fair.

Nope, you just ignored the unfair comment made by a Christian, and targeted Dru's "unfair" comment because it was aimed at a Christian.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in that, and wanted to make sure you understood.

Dru's was a retaliation in kind, to point out why the 'wishy-washy' comment was wrong, rather than being a genuine attack on Christians. (I assume; though, snark aside - as I've said, I think Christians should behave like Christ. Heck, I don't identify as Christian, and I would like to aim to behave like Christ.)

I certainly wouldn't attack Christians, considering I am one.

@pravda I didn't ignore it. I just didn't think the 'wishy-washy' statement was wrong. And, I was just stating that in my opinion telling someone they should be more "Christ-like" is just as offensive because one is making the assumption that all Christians should be Christ-like. There's a difference between saying one should strive to be Christ-like as to saying they should be Christlike just because they're a Christian.

@dru I know that.

The Pies Endure:

And, I was just stating that in my opinion telling someone they should be more "Christ-like" is just as offensive because one is making the assumption that all Christians should be Christ-like. There's a difference between saying one should strive to be Christ-like as to saying they should be Christlike just because they're a Christian.

Unless I'm mistaken, one of the central tenants of Christianity is to emulate Christ/be Christ-like/strive to live as Christ did/etc.

So if someone says they're a Christian, it would stand to reason that they believe the tenants of their faith should be followed.

Basically, I was saying one shouldn't be rude and judgmental if they consider themselves to be a Christian because it is against the message of Christ.

Yes, no person has ever targeted members of their own group because their beliefs differ.



ed: yes, yes. It's late here.

The Pies Endure:

@pravda I didn't ignore it. I just didn't think the 'wishy-washy' statement was wrong. And, I was just stating that in my opinion telling someone they should be more "Christ-like" is just as offensive because one is making the assumption that all Christians should be Christ-like. There's a difference between saying one should strive to be Christ-like as to saying they should be Christlike just because they're a Christian.

-facepalm-

You didn't think it was wrong, yet you just acknowledged that the Christian-targeting comment was "just as offensive"?

I.e. that the two are equally offensive. I.e. that the wishy-washy comment was wrong, for the reasons that many have pointed out (i.e. that agnosticism for many is the only intellectually honest position.)

^
I wouldn't attack all Christians, just some of them, if I were to attack Christians.

pravda.:

Nope, you just ignored the unfair comment made by a Christian, and targeted Dru's "unfair" comment because it was aimed at a Christian.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in that, and wanted to make sure you understood.

Dru's was a retaliation in kind, to point out why the 'wishy-washy' comment was wrong, rather than being a genuine attack on Christians. (I assume; though, snark aside - as I've said, I think Christians should behave like Christ. Heck, I don't identify as Christian, and I would like to aim to behave like Christ.)

Alas, this isn't exactly what the Bible says. One can be Christ (Romans 12:4-5 For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function,/ so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.) or follow Christ's guidance (John 14:6 “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."), but Christ-like? Not really because it would mean being God-like and that's impossible (and the same kind of vanity for which Lucifer was thrown out of Heaven).

Also, Christ is judgemental in the most literal meaning of the word seeing as He judges our souls / decides where they go after we die.

@dru no one should be rude or judgemental. That's not just a Christian construct. And some people may consider being told to 'be more Christlike' as being rude and judgemental ;) just saying :)

@pravda I don't think it was wrong, I was just saying that I don't think you can say one thing is offensive without realising other views may be just as offensive.

@kafka I think when we talk about being Christ-like we mean his human aspects, the way he treated people, the fact that He chose to hang out with the outcasts of society etc etc. Not His God characteristics.

pravda.:

Thisssss.

There's 'hard' atheism and 'soft' atheism, the former being the assertion that there is no god/God/gods, the latter being the lack of belief in it/them. I suspect that very few self-described 'atheists' subscribe to 'hard' atheism, though I think you could just as easily have the belief that the universe is cold/empty as you could have the belief that there is a loving presence in it / with you.

But I think the majority of 'atheists' when pressed would tell you "I don't know if there is a god" which more or less means "I do not have the belief that there is a god." The issue is that our religious hangover (and various human predispositions) presupposes theism; as some comedian has stated, do I have to state that I don't believe in alchemy? (In unicorns? In a flying spaghetti monster?) Logically speaking, I think, the default should be a lack of belief - a tabula rasa - which may be affected by personal experience, upbringing, exposure to a religion or to multiple religions, exposure to literature, etc. So it's not "sitting on the fence" or "hedging bets" or anything like that - it's simply not subscribing to a system that you have no evidence for.

The terms are actually agnostic and gnostic atheists. Just as agnostic and gnostic theists.

Agnosticism isn't some "middle ground" inbetween two warring sides (atheists and theists). The popular use for agnosticism is more of a blanket term for a person who doesn't identify as either of those above, someone who doesn't want to "pick a side" or actually recognise s/he has no faith or belief.

Atheism and theism are answers to the question whether or not you have faith in existence of some deity. The answers are "yes" or "no". "I don't know" is not really an answer.

Personally, when a person says they're agnostic, I assume they're using it as means to avoid conflict or simply because they don't involve themselves in theistic arguments. In reality, odds are they are in fact atheists, since they have no belief in a deity. Whether they actively deny its existence or simply pass it as their lack of knowledge of this deity's existence - is irrelevant.

Xsoteria:

The terms are actually agnostic and gnostic atheists. Just as agnostic and gnostic theists.

Agnosticism isn't some "middle ground" inbetween two warring sides (atheists and theists). The popular use for agnosticism is more of a blanket term for a person who doesn't identify as either of those above, someone who doesn't want to "pick a side" or actually recognise s/he has no faith or belief.

Atheism and theism are answers to the question whether or not you have faith in existence of some deity. The answers are "yes" or "no". "I don't know" is not really an answer.

Personally, when a person says they're agnostic, I assume they're using it as means to avoid conflict or simply because they don't involve themselves in theistic arguments. In reality, odds are they are in fact atheists, since they have no belief in a deity. Whether they actively deny its existence or simply pass it as their lack of knowledge of this deity's existence - is irrelevant.

There are agnostics who are not atheists, though. Of course the majority are probably atheists, or more to the point they're probably just really against the idea of the monotheistic God/s of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. [I know that's a cynical stance, but that's often why people are/become atheists, because of those particular religions.]

Xsoteria:

Personally, when a person says they're agnostic, I assume they're using it as means to avoid conflict or simply because they don't involve themselves in theistic arguments. In reality, odds are they are in fact atheists, since they have no belief in a deity. Whether they actively deny its existence or simply pass it as their lack of knowledge of this deity's existence - is irrelevant.

I don't understand why having no belief in a deity makes somebody an atheist, people can have religious beliefs / beliefs in supernatural phenomenons without believing in a personal god e.g. Buddhists.

The Pies Endure:

@kafka I think when we talk about being Christ-like we mean his human aspects, the way he treated people, the fact that He chose to hang out with the outcasts of society etc etc. Not His God characteristics.

Christ didn't have human aspects and God aspects - He was both human and God at the same time, all His characteristics are both - besides He didn't really hang out with the outcasts of society, from what the Bible says, the Apostles were Jewish (and possibly Greek) merchants and tradesmen not, for example, slaves.

kafka.:

Christ didn't have human aspects and God aspects - He was both human and God at the same time, all His characteristics are both - besides He didn't really hang out with the outcasts of society, from what the Bible says, the Apostles were Jewish (and possibly Greek) merchants and tradesmen not, for example, slaves.

He hung out with the outcasts of Jewish society. He hung with tax collectors which were seen as lower than low because they worked for the Romans. He spoke to a Samaritan woman which is a huge no no. And he was fully human so when we say Christlike we mean His human qualities.

Of course He was human and God at the same time, but He emptied Himself of His divine aspects when He was on earth otherwise His sacrifice on the Cross wouldn't have meant anything.

The Pies Endure:

He hung out with the outcasts of Jewish society. He hung with tax collectors which were seen as lower than low because they worked for the Romans. He spoke to a Samaritan woman which is a huge no no. And he was fully human so when we say Christlike we mean His human qualities.

Talking to somebody once doesn't mean you hang out with them - it just means you've talked to them once.

Quote

Of course He was human and God at the same time, but He emptied Himself of His divine aspects when He was on earth otherwise His sacrifice on the Cross wouldn't have meant anything.

This does not make any sense to me. His sacrifice on the Cross meant what it did because He was both God and human - crucifixion was a fairly popular way of torturing / killing somebody so thousands of people were crucified before He was, but none of them saved humanity.

@kafka 1. He went and ate with the woman and he caused a lot of people who knew her to believe in him. The fact was that he spoke with a Samaritan woman, that was a big thing. Jewish men did not speak to women. Nor did Jewish people speak to Samaritans or even associate with them because it would mean becoming unclean. It is very significant that Jesus did that.

2. It makes perfect sense. After all God can't die. Therefore He emptied Himself of his divine qualities. But it didn't mean He stopped being God. As it is I think we're going too deep into it. pravda said "I would like to behave like Christ". Behaving like Christ has nothing to do with his God 'aspects'. That was where I was coming from really.