Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

The major fault of New Christians

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 2:15:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
(For reference, New Christians refer to the movement post-WW2 which has returned to ultra-classical interpretations of the Bible with creation stories and similar values in light of a society moving towards permissive liberalism, claiming truth, or revealed theology)

Why is it that New Christians seem to attack any non-Christian thing that becomes big? The major fault I have of New Atheism is that it attacks literally anything partly religious, and promotes anything even slightly secular. Yet New Christian movements seem to do this similarly.

Take the example of Harry Potter compared to His Dark Materials. Harry Potter is an extremely popular premier-league Manchester United of the book world, with masses of support and money and merchandise and everything. And dozens upon dozens are criticising it (ministers and similar no less) due to it being about sorcery. Its ban in certain places in the US for periods of time highlighted the level of aggression to non-Christian ideas. The success of the Dawkins Delusion (which I own and is, as far as book reviews go, is not really that good, but not horribly bad, until considering how good the author usually is) is another example, though slightly less surprising due to the nature of what it rebuts. Twilight is another example of overeager New Christians going fanatical over things.

However, take His Dark Materials: The Blackburn Rovers, or the Champions League of the book world. Successful, a good book, a movie has been made of one of the books... it's certainly a big one. The major theme of the book, though, is an anti-Christian message nearing the idea "God is dead". In fact, I'd go as far as to say that is does say such a thing. Yet this book has barely any publicity in any sensationalist areas. The only observation I've only seen of it being mentioned is on passing with famous Christian lecturer Peter Vardy (not a sensationalist/alarmist/populist lecturer, but still a famous lecturer). The book's selling figures are over 15 million, yet Vardy's comment has slowly made other Catholics aware to the message of the book.

What's really astonishing, and telling, is how long it's taken America's religious fear-mongers to notice Pullman. He's never hidden his skepticism about God or his rejection of organized religion. A quick Internet search turns up a 2004 essay he wrote deploring "theocracies" for a newspaper in his native Britain, and his own Web site states that he thinks it "perfectly possible to explain how the universe came about without bringing God into it." "His Dark Materials" features a sympathetic character, an ex-nun, who describes Christianity as "a very powerful and convincing mistake," while "The Amber Spyglass" concludes with the two child heroes participating in the dissolution of "the Authority," a senile, pretender God who has falsely passed himself off as the creator of the universe."

Simply, these things aren't relevant for their abrasiveness or disagreement with Christianity, only about how popular they get in the public eye. Someone might be wondering why I posted this. It is because I have heard yet another (yes, more than one) serious Christian tell me that The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe was "blasphemous". After I told him it's by apologist C.S.Lewis, promoting Christian messages through hidden symbolism, he did a 180 on me and told me that's why it's such a good book. The problem is double-pronged for me: Firstly, it shows how the New Christian Movement seems to be attacking anything irreligious (that is, not to do with religion) anywhere it sees it gaining popularity, and secondly participates in preposterous duckspeak whenever any issue of Christian books come out - shamelessly promoting Christian theology and theologians when inappropriate to do so, when downright foolish, or just plain contradictory.

New Christians endlessly getting on their high horse criticising atheists for lack of morality and hating justice while claiming things about Kent Hovind like:

"I've known Kent for years and his Morals would not let him do anything illegal He should be freed, Pardoned ( for thouse who don't belive in his iinnocents ) and allowed to continue his ministry."

"How can such persecution be happening in America?"

"Reinstate the integrity of USA, and free Dr. Hovind and his wife."

It seriously annoys me when I see such unashamed duckspeak. It is an insult not just to good speakers, but to the good thinkers on both Atheism and Christianity when these individuals take the ground as being the "norm". To bring a ramble to a close, I am getting more and more annoyed every time something irrelevant to Christianity gets massively popular and criticised by Christians as a result, when something explicitly used to criticise Christians flies under their radar because it's not in the top spot.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 4:22:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lol @ Christians claiming The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is blasphemous.

Good read. I think I'm going to work for someone at least close to being a New Christian. 0.0
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 7:53:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 2:15:58 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
(For reference, New Christians refer to the movement post-WW2 which has returned to ultra-classical interpretations of the Bible with creation stories and similar values in light of a society moving towards permissive liberalism, claiming truth, or revealed theology)

Why is it that New Christians seem to attack any non-Christian thing that becomes big? The major fault I have of New Atheism is that it attacks literally anything partly religious, and promotes anything even slightly secular. Yet New Christian movements seem to do this similarly.

Take the example of Harry Potter compared to His Dark Materials. Harry Potter is an extremely popular premier-league Manchester United of the book world, with masses of support and money and merchandise and everything. And dozens upon dozens are criticising it (ministers and similar no less) due to it being about sorcery. Its ban in certain places in the US for periods of time highlighted the level of aggression to non-Christian ideas. The success of the Dawkins Delusion (which I own and is, as far as book reviews go, is not really that good, but not horribly bad, until considering how good the author usually is) is another example, though slightly less surprising due to the nature of what it rebuts. Twilight is another example of overeager New Christians going fanatical over things.

However, take His Dark Materials: The Blackburn Rovers, or the Champions League of the book world. Successful, a good book, a movie has been made of one of the books... it's certainly a big one. The major theme of the book, though, is an anti-Christian message nearing the idea "God is dead". In fact, I'd go as far as to say that is does say such a thing. Yet this book has barely any publicity in any sensationalist areas. The only observation I've only seen of it being mentioned is on passing with famous Christian lecturer Peter Vardy (not a sensationalist/alarmist/populist lecturer, but still a famous lecturer). The book's selling figures are over 15 million, yet Vardy's comment has slowly made other Catholics aware to the message of the book.

What's really astonishing, and telling, is how long it's taken America's religious fear-mongers to notice Pullman. He's never hidden his skepticism about God or his rejection of organized religion. A quick Internet search turns up a 2004 essay he wrote deploring "theocracies" for a newspaper in his native Britain, and his own Web site states that he thinks it "perfectly possible to explain how the universe came about without bringing God into it." "His Dark Materials" features a sympathetic character, an ex-nun, who describes Christianity as "a very powerful and convincing mistake," while "The Amber Spyglass" concludes with the two child heroes participating in the dissolution of "the Authority," a senile, pretender God who has falsely passed himself off as the creator of the universe."


Simply, these things aren't relevant for their abrasiveness or disagreement with Christianity, only about how popular they get in the public eye. Someone might be wondering why I posted this. It is because I have heard yet another (yes, more than one) serious Christian tell me that The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe was "blasphemous". After I told him it's by apologist C.S.Lewis, promoting Christian messages through hidden symbolism, he did a 180 on me and told me that's why it's such a good book. The problem is double-pronged for me: Firstly, it shows how the New Christian Movement seems to be attacking anything irreligious (that is, not to do with religion) anywhere it sees it gaining popularity, and secondly participates in preposterous duckspeak whenever any issue of Christian books come out - shamelessly promoting Christian theology and theologians when inappropriate to do so, when downright foolish, or just plain contradictory.

New Christians endlessly getting on their high horse criticising atheists for lack of morality and hating justice while claiming things about Kent Hovind like:

"I've known Kent for years and his Morals would not let him do anything illegal He should be freed, Pardoned ( for thouse who don't belive in his iinnocents ) and allowed to continue his ministry."

"How can such persecution be happening in America?"

"Reinstate the integrity of USA, and free Dr. Hovind and his wife."

It seriously annoys me when I see such unashamed duckspeak. It is an insult not just to good speakers, but to the good thinkers on both Atheism and Christianity when these individuals take the ground as being the "norm". To bring a ramble to a close, I am getting more and more annoyed every time something irrelevant to Christianity gets massively popular and criticised by Christians as a result, when something explicitly used to criticise Christians flies under their radar because it's not in the top spot.

I love Kent and think he was in the wrong concerning taxes.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)