Bill B

I think all of us who have encountered any significant number of people in our daily lives, know that the theoretical correctness of a person's worldview may bear no relationship to that same person's personality, sense of compassion, emphathy, decency, or basic likability. Atheists and theists are both very likely to have rude, obnoxious, insulting, uncaring bitches and bastards in their membership ranks.

A Christian's worldview may be totally at odds with my own, but, frankly, if the person, otherwise, tries to be understanding and emphathetic, shares what they have, gives me the benefit of the doubt, and treats me fairly, I may often feel closer to that person than I would to those few but inevitable, rude, obnoxious atheists in my circle whose professed worldview may be identical to my own.

DaMan121

..and the brutality and intolerance in the NT? Selective reading is a blessing it seems.

Biff the unclean

Well for one thing she misrepresents Christianity. Let's say I'm a Nazi and I help little old Jewish ladies across the street. Then I declare that it was Hitler who caused me to lend them aid. This gives a false good impression of a terrible ideology, Hitler actually wanted old Jewish ladies dead. Jesus felt the same about Gays

Not all of it by a long shot. Also Jesus introduces the concept of Hell and eternal damnation which is far more brutal than anything that happened in the OT

Eve L. Incarnata

Bill B, I've been thinking about writing something similar. Thanks for beating me to it. When it gets down to it, I don't care what someone believes as long as they live and act in a humane way and aren't proselytizing me.

Ponzi

Look, I'm not trying to defend Christian theology here. I'm well aware that all sorts of selective readings and contradictions and whatnot are all over the place. I'm just pointing out that this woman's version of it is, in terms of her actions, not objectionable.

Biff the unclean

I guess I'm having trouble expressing myself. I agree that the woman's actions were fine. She did what any decent person would do. The problem, as I see it, was that she did not let her actions speak for themselves but went out of her way to attribute them to an external source. And to make it worse she attributed them to an external source whose stated position on the situation in question was the complete opposite to the stance which she took.

It's a matter of false advertising,the ole bait and switch. "Gee look at this good noble woman. I want to be noble too." Then you sign up and find that the Holy Ghost wants you to go to the polls to stop gay marriage.

The difference between what this woman claimed her philosophy lead her to do and what the philosophy states you should do is more than the difference between black and white. It's the difference between red and blue.

Rusting Car Bumper

How are non-theists ever going to get respect if they don't give default civil respect to theists?

Most people are generally good people. Most people don't want to be treated well and treat others well. This has nothign to do with religion or lack thereof.

That is why we should be trying to engage in dialogue with theists at a more personal level rather than debating and battling with a few of them.

DC

J-D

I can see that somebody who is a Christian might believe that there is one interpretation which is 'real Christianity' and that the others are, at best, misunderstandings. But, as a non-Christian, I see a Christian religious tradition with divergent and not always compatible strands, and no interpretation which takes priority as 'the true Christianity'. (And, incidentally, ditto for Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Sikhism, Judaism, Bahai, and all the rest.)

And so I see no contradiction in supposing that some people would be inspired by their Christianity (as they understand it) to be kind and generous, while others are inspired by their Christianity (as they understand it) to be cruel and selfish. (And, again, ditto for all the other religious traditions.)