Sky Fairies

[TeePee]

I have, of course read the gospels, along with the rest of the bible, among other holy books. It's one of the easier ones to read (certainly compared to the book of Mormon), but it's not really a valuable educational tool. I do not think Wycliffe are evil. Misguided, certainly. The world would be better off if they put effort into building schools and uniting communities rather than creating and enhancing segregation. Many of Africa's problems are the legacy of missionaries, christian and islamic. If you wish to continue arguing, I suggest you read some of the more insightful comments on that article and reply there. It's not actually relevant to the original post.

The history of Britain contains some fantastic legacies of religion, and tearing them down is a destruction of history, rather than religion. St Paul's Cathedral is a perfect example of a beautiful piece of architecture, which can be appreciated in it's own right. You can't look at it without a feeling of awe at the achievement of man. From a modern perspective, it is the design, the more than 40 years of construction, which makes it impressive. We do not need to pray to a sky fairy to give thanks for it's construction. Religion is dying out on it's own, and partly for this reason. The work of man is being valued increasingly in it's own right.

[Galant]

My apologies for any confusion, I used OP in the sense of 'original poster' not 'original post'. I was responding directly to his latest comment about Christian influence.

TeePee you some absolutely incapable of recognising or acknowledging any sort of good if it has religion attached. Surely the literacy brought by them is a good thing? Surely it is better to have one very good but imperfect thing, and to acknowledge it, rather than through out the good because it isn't perfect?

What I see in both your response and the OP, is your overwhelming hatred of religion which, it appears to me, blinds anyone who holds it, to certain simple truths. The OP was written to defend the insulting use of the term 'Sky Fairy' because he believes religion is evil, and he hates having it 'shoved down his throat'. The truth to which you appear to be blind, Billy (sorry, didn't mean to talk about you in the 3rd person), is that one, a steeple or angel on a church isn't shoving anything down anyone's throat. I would suggest that it is simply a visual stimulus which triggers of a hyper-sensitive hatred which is already inside you. If it were 'shoving' something down people's throats then I assume we would have to ban all forms of advertising, public art, and the public display of anything - since it could all be described as shoving 'whatever it is' down everyone's throat. The truth is that you don't object to everything else, you just dislike, or hate, Christianity, or religion, and your feelings are so strong, and so justified in your own mind, that it appears you wish to see it all torn down and removed. I know you are smarter than that. Please recognise that such public displays are, at the very least, simply an expression of something going on inside humanity. I would suggest that unless the public display is offensive in itself then it should be permitted to remain.

A more general truth to which there seems to be a blindness on the part of those who hate Christianity or religion, and one I find very interesting, is the thought that if there is no God, if all religion is a lie, then all such thought and expression, and all deeds done by religious motive, is properly described as a work of men. Therefore, if the work of man is to be valued in its own right, surely the good work of religious people should be recognised, valued, praised and encouraged, (in order to bring out the best in human beings), whilst traces of misunderstanding or false knowledge are educated away? At the same time, it also must follow that all war and division and segregation is also a work of man alone, and therefore all men must own up to it, attempt to find the internal source of those things, and work to free men from whatever it is in themselves that find its expression in these things. That religion is not the cause of anything, but rather, men are. For it can be shown that in religious matters men have been exceedingly bad, and also, exceedingly good. It can also be shown that in non-religious matters men have been exceedingly bad and also exceedingly good. Therefore, it is not religion that is the problem, for men have also acted the same way without it. Rather, there is something in man that is the problem and that is what needs to be addressed. The thing that makes a religious or non-religious man do good must be encouraged. The thing that makes a religious or non-religious man do evil must be discouraged. If there is no truth in any religion, then religion has nothing to do with anything, rather there is nothing to be seen in the world other than man's own self, his own nature.

I contend that, rather than condemning all 'public displays of religion' and seeking to destroy all religious thought and practise, a person's action should be weighed according to their own merits and their reasons for doing those actions should be considered and accepted. I contend this because if we do not do this then we end up with a ridiculous position where one could also argue that when a religious person has cared for someone else because of their religion, then that too is ramming it down their throats and should be stopped? To illustrate the point, let's take the well-known Christian teaching of the 'Good Samaritan'. If we were to argue that we must prevent all public displays of religion, especially when enacted upon another individual, does that mean we need to flip the story on its head? That is to say that the 'religious people' who walked by the injured man and did nothing were doing the right thing because they refrained from displaying their faith in public and the Samaritan, who acted on the teaching 'Love your neighbour as yourself', was the real villain and should be condemned because he brought his religion into the life of another.
Certainly, I don't think any of us would say that.

This then, is my point, that those who hate religion only seem to look at, and point out, any and all negative aspects of religion, saying that it must all be bad and nothing good can come from it. Instead, I would argue that public displays of religion - which can be positive or negative - are therefore not rightly described as 'ramming your faith down someone's throat'. Rather, that term should be used to described specific acts of trying to force someone to practise your religion. The focus should be upon bringing out the best of man, which, it seems to be, is not necessarily related to religion (which also comes from man), but must be something else within his nature.

[TeePee]

Are you actually reading what I've written?

My posts are pretty short, it shouldn't be difficult for you to take the time to read them. I thought I was pretty clearly stating that beautiful things shouldn't be destroyed just because of their religious origins.

I'm not going to quote pages of irrelevant waffle.

attempt to find the internal source of those things

That internal source is very often a religious motivation. Just because gods are fiction doesn't mean people do not do things because of their beliefs.

If there is no truth in any religion, then religion has nothing to do with anything.

Same. This is illogical. Truth is not required for belief.

Your 'Good Samaritan' section makes no sense whatsoever. I don't understand what helping someone who is injured has to do with public displays of religion. The history of the Samaritan people is more interesting. There were once a million, but a thousand years of religious persecution by both Muslims and Christians has reduced their number to a few hundred. Some parable. A better example might be the Canaanite woman who, according to the myth, Jesus ignored, refused to help, and called a dog just because she didn't have the same religion as him.

I happily support public displays of religion which are privately funded and with equal protection for all.

[Galant]

Are you actually reading what I've written?

My posts are pretty short, it shouldn't be difficult for you to take the time to read them. I thought I was pretty clearly stating that beautiful things shouldn't be destroyed just because of their religious origins.

I'm not going to quote pages of irrelevant waffle.

Yes, I am. I just think that religious people doing good thing, like the organisations mentioned, is a beautiful thing.

That internal source is very often a religious motivation. Just because gods are fiction doesn't mean people do not do things because of their beliefs.

Indeed they do. The point though, is that if the same beliefs can lead to different actions and different beliefs can lead to the same actions, can we definitely say that it is the beliefs that are the problem? It is my contention that actions should be weighed on their own merit, and the declared motivation for those actions then considered.

Your 'Good Samaritan' section makes no sense whatsoever. I don't understand what helping someone who is injured has to do with public displays of religion.

The point here is that helping someone who is injured is a public display of religion, if religious belief is the motivation for the action. That being the case, religious belief is therefore responsible for good. Therefore, this is an illustration of the previous point of the positive, valuable influence of Christianity and also the previous point that actions should be weighed, and beliefs considered, rather than stating that religion poisons everything. It is my contention that religion does not poison everything, but rather than everything is already poisoned and religion is simply one way that some people allow that poison to display itself.

The history of the Samaritan people is more interesting. There were once a million, but a thousand years of religious persecution by both Muslims and Christians has reduced their number to a few hundred. Some parable. A better example might be the Canaanite woman who, according to the myth, Jesus ignored, refused to help, and called a dog just because she didn't have the same religion as him.

A correction. The main point of this parable that Jesus was making is that everyone is our neighbour. He was speaking to the Jews of the day who were prejudiced against the Samaritans and showing them that the Samaritans are their neighbours. So I do believe you agree with Jesus. Second, in the 'myth', as you put it, Jesus did help the woman and her daughter. Third, Jesus was not calling the woman a dog. Many of Jesus' words and teachings were intentionally difficult at first glance. In this case He was attempting to highlight the woman's faith, and bring out the expression of it. He was not calling her dog, he was asking her why, since she knew Jews thought she was one, was she coming to a Jewish teacher for help. Her expressed desire and faith was that which Jesus wanted to draw out and then he helped her.

I happily support public displays of religion which are privately funded and with equal protection for all.

I'm glad. My question is, does this extend to those who are spending their lives in the service of others, doing demonstrable good, with religious motivations and their freedom to be able to express and share the message of that motivating religious belief?

[TeePee]

In the myth, Jesus helped the woman only because his disciples begged him to. This is an excellent counterpoint to the Good Samaritan parable. It's actually a very quirky story that shows the very Jewish understanding of 'purity' shown by Jesus, and lends some credibility to an actual historical figure. Irregardless, forcing a person to humiliate themselves in exchange for help for her daughter was cruel.

If, as you say, helping someone with a religious motivation is a religious action (which it is not), that contradicts your final question. Serving others is a separate action from expressing the reason why. The issue here is who do these people think they are serving? Are they trying to help people or trying to serve their gods by spreading their holy book. What is the real motivation?

It is human to help someone who is injured at the side of the road. This is the point of the parable. To do so only because you can then try to convert him to your religion is both disturbing and a contradiction.

[Galant]

In the myth, Jesus helped the woman only because his disciples begged him to. This is an excellent counterpoint to the Good Samaritan parable. It's actually a very quirky story that shows the very Jewish understanding of 'purity' shown by Jesus, and lends some credibility to an actual historical figure. Irregardless, forcing a person to humiliate themselves in exchange for help for her daughter was cruel.

If you look through Scripture you will find that Jesus frequently places 'stumbling blocks' in front of people in order to challenge and test them. To test their commitment, their understanding, their faith. He uses various opportunities to illustrate poignant truths and get to the heart of the matter. The Gospel, that is, the Good News of Jesus Christ, is not that He comes simply to fix up things that have gone wrong and send us on our way, it is to draw us up, to transform us, and to give what we might call the best 'full, permanent solution' rather than a quick fix. On this occasion, what we see here in Jesus's actions is not racism nor a lack of compassion. To understand you cannot read the event in isolation but must look at and understand the context of the cultural setting and the events which took place before and would take place after. This event has overtones which speak to the Jewish people, of whom Christ spoke in the passage; people to whom He was sent and yet many of whom having no interest in Him or flatly rejecting Him. Here a foreign woman is able to see and desires that which was not even sent to her. To the disciples I'm sure this was a great lesson once again. One that challenged them and taught them. To the woman this was a challenge of faith used by Christ to prove to herself and others who she thought He was and the true nature of faith. There are many lessons here. The cannot be seen simply by pulling the passage out from its setting and then applying a 21st century mindset to it.

Consider the following:

The event took place in Syro-Phoenicia - if Jesus was racist, or had no intention of helping foreigners because He "was sent to the lost sheep of Israel", why was He even in that place? He would have had no desire nor requirement to be there.

He was no racist, and indeed full of compassion. Yet He wouldn't settle for just a quick fix. This wasn't a matter of a pat on the head and a temporary solution. This was the provision of vital truth, taught with a lesson of challenge. This occasion was what we might consider a 'set-up'. His disciples were constantly learning. People were constantly in need. God uses these opportunities not only to meet needs but to relate important truths and establish important realities.

I will offer a summarising quote from Allen Ross since he puts it better than I could,

The basic theme of the passage is that Christ went into Gentile territory and did this miracle for a Gentile woman who had greater faith than the Jews who were rejecting and challenging Jesus’ claims. It teaches us about the grace of our Lord, about faith of people who are in need, and about the coming advance of the kingdom to the Gentiles who will be sent into all the world. They would know that it was the Lord’s desire that all come to salvation.

So the conversation has to be understood in its historical setting to capture fully what Jesus is doing here. He is not playing games with the woman--He did not go all the way to her region to avoid her! But the crisis between Jesus and the Jews was soon to intensify, and Jesus is making it clear that the grace of God will be given to all who believe, even though His mission called for Him to present Himself to Israel as the Son of David. It was as if He was saying to the disciples and to her, “You do know I am the Jewish Messiah don’t you?”

His full look at the passage can be found here: http://bible.org/seriespage/faith-ca...atthew-1521-28

If, as you say, helping someone with a religious motivation is a religious action (which it is not),

Why not? We never refer to the actions of individuals without consideration for their motivations. If we take one action, let's say writing a letter, but with no known motivation then we speak only of the action itself. If, however, that letter is written to intentionally hurt someone, then we call what they did a malicious action. If the letter is written with the intention of empathising we call it an empathetic action. If the letter is it written with no desire for self but to help someone we call it a selfless action. If the action is done to fulfill a religious command, then why not call it a religious action?

Still, if we do call it that, then you say it...

...contradicts your final question. Serving others is a separate action from expressing the reason why.

Serving others can indeed be seen as separate from expressing the reason why, however it does not necessarily have to be. For example, if we take the example of one blind beggar bringing bread to another blind beggar and then explaining how and where he got it. In that case we might say that the giving of the bread, and the sharing of the knowledge are both the same action of help. The man could take the bread and forget the words - so they can be taken separately - but for the one bringing the bread, the one who found where to get bread and thus received it himself, the two are tied together. That is what Christians are doing when they share their own experience of the power of the Gospel at work in their lives. There are, of course, better and worse times and places and methods of doing so. Many Christians fail at that hurdle nor can I defend the actions of all Christians. What I can do is state that for a great many of us, the opportunity to share what we have found and that which has blessed us is a precious thing. We try to not be tactless about it. Rather, we share in the way I described above. Trying to help people and tell them where they can find bread, because we know the same need, and found the answer to that need in a particular place. The two are tied, and we appreciate the opportunity we have often been given to at express our beliefs and reasons as we have helped others.

The issue here is who do these people think they are serving? Are they trying to help people or trying to serve their gods by spreading their holy book. What is the real motivation?

Why not both? I think I detect a hint of a pre-conceived notion about a certain way God might be, or the sort of commands He might give. Yet, what if God existed, and what He commanded His disciples to do was to genuinely love one another and others? To engage in practical acts of love, and also to grow in real love towards one another? If that were the case the desire to help people would be real and present, and yet at the same time, those disciples would be loving and serving the God whom they have chosen to follow. I think both can be done. It also happens to be the case that I believe in that very God who made that very command.

It is human to help someone who is injured at the side of the road. This is the point of the parable. To do so only because you can then try to convert him to your religion is both disturbing and a contradiction.

Actually, if it was human to help someone at the side of the road, there would be no need for the parable. The point of the parable, was to teach what the second greatest command of God requires. That is, "Love your neighbour as yourself". To which someone replied, "And who is my neighbour?" And so Jesus told the parable to illustrate, in a very slap-in-the-face way, that everyone is your neighbour, even the person you despise the most.

He was teaching what true religion required. So that those who wished to listen could put into practise the command of God. No-one ever, naturally, loves their enemy. That's why we call them enemies. We don't naturally love the people we despise. That's why we say we despise them. What Jesus was teaching was that if you truly call yourselves followers of God, if you truly believe you belong to Him, then no matter what you feel, you will love even your enemies - in action. Then later in other places the teaching is expanded on further to teach the love of brothers. So that, in truth, the true practise of religion, true religious action, includes loving others. The book of James also states that true religion is to care for orphans and widows. Nowhere does the Bible advocate callousness towards others. It always encourages a 'thick skin and a soft heart'. Jesus also placed great emphasis on the importance of our thoughts and attitudes. It's why he raised the bar on the Ten Commandments. Beyond teaching that we should not murder, He taught that we should not hate. So the concern you show for the truth of feeling, the truth of love, in helping other is valid. It seems naive, however to suggest that everyone has this kind of love within them already. I think there is evidence enough in this world of the lack of love within humanity. I think it would be more accurate to state that what is human is selfishness or pride. That aside though, recognising the value of love, those who have come to know Christ would state from experience that the greatest aspect or experience of that relationship is the receiving of love and the growth of love within oneself. It is this received love and forgiveness which becomes the source for the Christian's own growing love, forgiveness and acceptance, even in the darkest and most trying circumstances. It is that love and forgiveness received from God that enables and inspires Christians to then love others, even to their own loss. To fulfill their true religious practise. Nevertheless, the Bible does recognise that there are times when you would rather not do that which you know you should. In those moments we are taught that it is better to do the right thing without feeling it, than to feel it but not do it or not feel it and not do it.

So then it is the case that Christians do love others to please God, but also do it out of increasingly genuine love for the person or people involved. Indeed, Christianity properly practised should be the religion of love and sacrifice, grace and truth. As for loving people "just so you can convert them". That is, without love, or to 'score points with God' is not Christian belief. If it occurs, it does so in spite of Christian teaching, not because of it.

I think we got here because we were talking about the idea that religion shouldn't be shoved down people's throats and that Christian influence is a bad thing.

All of what I write here is, I truly hope, honest. Honest thinking and/or honest belief. I hope that I can and do live up to what I write. That my writings, as well as my actions are true representations of the Gospel. As I was trying to point out in another thread, but which I have neglected whilst engaging in this and the abortion thread, is that beliefs exist for all of us - and that doesn't have to be in the absence of knowledge, but formed in observation of reality. How do we choose to live our lives? What informs us? What is most important to us? Is it pure reason? Is it pure science? Is it personal preference? Is it our whims and momentary desires? How shall we choose to live? How shall we form a good society in which to live? How shall we understand ourselves and others and this world? For my part, I believe in Christ and in the Christian gospel "like I believe in the sun. Not only because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else," (to quote CS Lewis). I have found nothing to compare with Christ and His teachings. My beliefs have influenced and encompassed my life entirely. I try to live by them. To understand them. To apply them.

Freedom to practise my faith is here now, it may disappear tomorrow. I hope and intend to stand committed to Christ and practising Godly love whatever happens. Whilst I have it though, I believe it is a good thing, I greatly appreciate it, and I think it is good for society. That necessarily includes, though, not only the freedom to read my Bible or pray in my room, but also to speak of my belief to others - hopefully in a loving and respectful way. I don't see how freedom can be otherwise interpreted. Again, I believe it is good for society, because I'm glad someone had the freedom to speak to me about it. To teach me about it. I believe the people I grew up watching have done many good things for many people. I believe many of my Christian friends have grown up to do the same. I hope that I too, because of the Christian influence in my life, have also done others much good. I contend for the presence of the Christian faith and Christian influence because not only do I believe in the truth of Christ, but because I believe it can be seen that Christian actions have done much good. Someone may argue that elements of the Christian faith are untrue, I might well disagree with them - depending upon what they're saying. However, what do the offer as a replacement. We once again come to the question of tearing down others beliefs, not offering or presenting one's own or an alternative. So far I have seen no coherent plan. No alternative. Love for God who also commands love for man, is a good basis upon which to operate as a society. Survival of the fittest isn't. We all have beliefs. They shape our lives and society. It is Judeo-Christian principles which have been a big part of the foundation of our concept of justice and human rights. People can use the term 'Sky-Fairy' all they want. Personally, I think it's quite sad because it only betrays a lack of understanding about true religious belief, or the depth and importance of religious teachings, particularly Christian ones. Whatever the case, I firmly believe that all this talk of throwing out Christian influence is misguided, and perhaps more immediately than that, it runs right contrary to the notion of a free and just society.

[TeePee]

I got bored after the first paragraph so I stopped reading. I'm just not that interested.

Matt 10-5 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles' is another classic example. Paul is the one credited with spreading christianity to the non-jewish.

[Galant]

I got bored after the first paragraph so I stopped reading. I'm just not that interested.

Matt 10-5 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles' is another classic example. Paul is the one credited with spreading christianity to the non-jewish.

You're not interested but you go ahead and carry on quoting more of the same? May I suggest you stop bringing up subjects you're not interested in discussing? It's disrespectful and borderline insulting.

With regards the freedoms of Sky Fairy worshipers in the UK, maybe someone might find this interesting:

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.c...port-into.html

[TeePee]

I'm responding to your first paragraph. If you can make a clear and concise argument, please do. I don't have enough time to read wall-of-text posts that are illogical, contradict themselves and meander off-topic.

The article you link to is excellent!

The last century saw a privatisation of faith and the development of a sacred-secular divide through which Christianity lost much of its social and political influence. Now, too often the Church is defined by what it opposes rather than what it stands for. It is essential that Christians once again provide hope and a vision for society that goes beyond defending their own interests and includes the good of all.

While I have and continue to argue for the right of all people to express their beliefs religious or otherwise, this has to be on an equal basis. As it is, christianity is the favoured child, and that needs to stop. No bishops should be in government, and religious entities shouldn't have blanket immunity from taxes. While these things continue, it's hard to argue that christians don't have more than simple religious freedom.

[Galant]

I'm responding to your first paragraph. If you can make a clear and concise argument, please do. I don't have enough time to read wall-of-text posts that are illogical, contradict themselves and meander off-topic.

If that's the case then, it would be appreciated if you asked for a summary or clarification, rather than posting something else without having considered the reply?

Here's the summary on that particular subject:

I will offer a summarising quote from Allen Ross since he puts it better than I could,

The basic theme of the passage is that Christ went into Gentile territory and did this miracle for a Gentile woman who had greater faith than the Jews who were rejecting and challenging Jesus’ claims. It teaches us about the grace of our Lord, about faith of people who are in need, and about the coming advance of the kingdom to the Gentiles who will be sent into all the world. They would know that it was the Lord’s desire that all come to salvation.

So the conversation has to be understood in its historical setting to capture fully what Jesus is doing here. He is not playing games with the woman--He did not go all the way to her region to avoid her! But the crisis between Jesus and the Jews was soon to intensify, and Jesus is making it clear that the grace of God will be given to all who believe, even though His mission called for Him to present Himself to Israel as the Son of David. It was as if He was saying to the disciples and to her, “You do know I am the Jewish Messiah don’t you?”

His full look at the passage can be found here: http://bible.org/seriespage/faith-ca...atthew-1521-28

[billythewiz]

My original post was to justify my use of the term "Sky Fairies". I live in a town that has a huge, glow in the dark edifice, that can be seen for miles around.

My follow-up post was to illustrate just how prevalent the religious legacy of our heritage is. It is everywhere.

Just before easter I went into town. As I left left the car park I saw a poster advertising "Free Bible Study" for children during the school holiday. On reaching the High Street I saw the church billboard advertising "Pancake races here on Tuesday". And opposite that there were a couple of guys with a trestle table, giving out free books on islam. Just this weekend two jehova's witnesses knocked on my door to offer me more bible study.

My children are forced to study religion in school, the BBC is obliged to produce religious programs (do you know anyone who actually watches Songs of Praise ?), religion is part of local and national government, the NHS pays for religious services, it's entrenched in the military. The list goes on and on. It's everywhere. My latest concern is that my eldest daughter wants to join the Brownies. Thankfully, that may soon be a club where religion wont be rammed down her throat, quite has hard as it would have been in the past.

The Matthew Paris article was interesting, but it soon became apparent that it was just thinly veiled racism. His assertions that "In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good." is just cultural prejudice. I'd like to see his analysis on how this christian transformation compares to the islamic transformation that occurs when the locals are converted to that mythology. Inevitably the effect is almost exactly the same effect !

Finally, the idea that I (or other atheist) are "seeking to destroy all religious thought and practise" or are striving for the "complete removal of Christian influence" or even to remove religious buildings is just ridiculous. Let's imagine for a moment that that was even possible. To achieve it would require the cruel, persecution and ultimately mass murder of millions of people. It would require actions akin to those seen in the dark ages, in South America and more recently in Rwanda.

What I desire is for religious influence to be reduced to the amount it deserves based on it's democratic size. If the religious want to gather and sing songs and drink wine and pretend it's blood, or kill goats in the street using special "magic" knives, or surround their community with a wire or wear special head wear, or cut off parts of their new born boys' penises ..... I don't care.

I just don't want ideas that derive from these practices (and I'm sure you'll agree that some of these are very odd) to be imposed on me and my family (and that includes science and medical research that will benefit my descendants).