Hardcore/Punk Guide To Christianity

[xCrucialDudex]

I've just found this:
http://www.louisvillehardcore.com/hardcorepunk-guide-to-christianity/

Has anyone come across this earlier? Is it any good?

[lo0m]

it can be true in the global scope... but there is so many bullshit in there, that i won't finish it reading (stuck at ch 7)...

[xCrucialDudex]

it can be true in the global scope... but there is so many bullshit in there, that i won't finish it reading (stuck at ch 7)...

You just read it through up to chapter 7?

[lo0m]

yes, and finished it now and changed my (hot head) opinion.. it is good reading in global.. and i appreciate there's no christian-bashing in there.. its written sensitively and with respect.. still i see some minor misunderstanding there.. nothing serious.. thx for sharing :-)

[xsecx]

yes, and finished it now and changed my (hot head) opinion.. it is good reading in global.. and i appreciate there's no christian-bashing in there.. its written sensitively and with respect.. still i see some minor misunderstanding there.. nothing serious.. thx for sharing :-)

like what?

[xsecx]

I've just found this:
http://www.louisvillehardcore.com/hardcorepunk-guide-to-christianity/

Has anyone come across this earlier? Is it any good?

it used to be included with records back in the 90s. can't remember who, but it's been around for a long time and was done in response to the large influx of tooth and nail bands and their ilk.

[xCrucialDudex]

it used to be included with records back in the 90s. can't remember who, but it's been around for a long time and was done in response to the large influx of tooth and nail bands and their ilk.

Did you read it? What do you think about it? I still haven't read Intro entirely since I'm real busy these days but I will definitely go through this once I have some free time.

[CarlaRant]

Yeah, I remember reading this when I was first getting involved in punk/hc. It was in alot of zines that I picked up at shows. I skimmed through it just now to refresh my memory and it doesn't provide anything new when it comes refuting Christian beliefs, particularly in the hardcore scene. I agree that it is well written and fairly tolerant of Christians' beliefs. It's worth a read.

[lo0m]

Dusty: yeah, i was looking forward to this :-) but i will dissapoint you.. if you want to see the "other side" of the topic (or a very related one), then read Jacques Ellul's Anarchie et Christianisme (Anarchy and Christianity), particulary Adrien Duchosal's essay, which is in it.. that will give you totally different view on christianity than from a perspective of a US citizen or a punker. I'm not saying that it is a book, that will make you a christian, nor do I want that... but it's good to see the problem from different angle, isn't it?
anyway - as i said - i have no problem with the text in global, just some particular ideas are based on misunderstandings.. one simple example of how worthless my complaints really are..
look at chapter 8.. he is using verses from various Old Testament chapters (about facial hair for example) yet he doesn't point out that the main reason of Jesus' earthly life was to bring a new law, New Testament, which made a thick red line and changed many many things, most of all the conditions for entering heaven.. as i said - this is in no way serious complaint but if this text would be more complete i would be more likely to share it.. which i may do anyway..
hope that satisfied your need for brainfood.. :-)

[xsecx]

Did you read it? What do you think about it? I still haven't read Intro entirely since I'm real busy these days but I will definitely go through this once I have some free time.

yeah, and it's not bad. but it's also been well over 10 years since I read it.

[xsecx]

Dusty: yeah, i was looking forward to this :-) but i will dissapoint you.. if you want to see the "other side" of the topic (or a very related one), then read Jacques Ellul's Anarchie et Christianisme (Anarchy and Christianity), particulary Adrien Duchosal's essay, which is in it.. that will give you totally different view on christianity than from a perspective of a US citizen or a punker. I'm not saying that it is a book, that will make you a christian, nor do I want that... but it's good to see the problem from different angle, isn't it?
anyway - as i said - i have no problem with the text in global, just some particular ideas are based on misunderstandings.. one simple example of how worthless my complaints really are..
look at chapter 8.. he is using verses from various Old Testament chapters (about facial hair for example) yet he doesn't point out that the main reason of Jesus' earthly life was to bring a new law, New Testament, which made a thick red line and changed many many things, most of all the conditions for entering heaven.. as i said - this is in no way serious complaint but if this text would be more complete i would be more likely to share it.. which i may do anyway..
hope that satisfied your need for brainfood.. :-)

yeah, it's amazing how someone would ask you to explain a statement you'd made.

I always find it funny that when people talk about religion they use the word misunderstanding when someone who doesn't believe points out inconsistencies. That it's not a matter of it not making sense, it's that the person talking somehow doesn't understand the subject matter. The use of the new law is by and large a copout. Especially since it doesn't replace all of the old law, just the ones that make jews, jews so the christians could set themselves apart and that was by culture and not by scripture.

[lo0m]

sorry, i think i'm lost in your English now.. maybe will try to read it again later in the morning.. for now - as I said - i don't have any serious complaints about the text so i don't feel the urge to actually discuss it...

[xsecx]

sorry, i think i'm lost in your English now.. maybe will try to read it again later in the morning.. for now - as I said - i don't have any serious complaints about the text so i don't feel the urge to actually discuss it...

it's kind of weird that you'd say that the text is based on misunderstandings, but that wouldn't give you serious complaints?

[lo0m]

well, it maybe weird on your side of the ocean :-).. there are some statements used as arguments that - from my point of view - are not valid.. that doesn't mean that the other (the majority) arguments are not valid too. nor does that mean that the pamphlet is invalid in its whole meaning..so, again, and I would be really happy if you would remember it this time - stop putting words in my mouth. i have never stated that "the text is based on misunderstandings".. i said "i have no problem with the text in global, just some particular ideas are based on misunderstandings".. it would be propably better for both of us if you would just answer my posts if you want to and not try to reform/rewrite them. thanks (again)

[xsecx]

well, it maybe weird on your side of the ocean :-).. there are some statements used as arguments that - from my point of view - are not valid.. that doesn't mean that the other (the majority) arguments are not valid too. nor does that mean that the pamphlet is invalid in its whole meaning..so, again, and I would be really happy if you would remember it this time - stop putting words in my mouth. i have never stated that "the text is based on misunderstandings".. i said "i have no problem with the text in global, just some particular ideas are based on misunderstandings".. it would be propably better for both of us if you would just answer my posts if you want to and not try to reform/rewrite them. thanks (again)

How is asking for clarification of statements that are contradictory putting words in your mouth? If information put forward in a document isn't valid, even on some of the arguments, then it seems completely odd that you wouldn't have a problem with it. Then again, you follow an abrahamic religion so it makes sense that you're used to just ignoring things that don't make sense.

[lo0m]

...and that's exactly the point where you put words in my mouth.. i'm not a jew, i'm not a christian and i'm not a muslim (and i suspect you were thinking i am)... yes, Islam seems more reasonable than Christianity to me (and that's what i've stated in the "christianity x sxe" and also in the "logic and religion" thread), but that really doesn't make me a practicing muslim.. yet i'm not a pure atheist, that's true...
the reason why i was so much defending various religions are statements just like this one: "you follow an abrahamic religion so it makes sense that you're used to just ignoring things that don't make sense".. making every world believer look like an idiot would make you look like an idiot i guess.. it's not that simple and you know that.. you try to stigmatize a group based on its believes and try to deduce some hypothetical behavior pattern or even level of inteligence .. shit, that is totally comparable to mild racism for me... (and no, i'm not saying you're actually a racist person in any way)...
anyway - you surely agree with everything for 100% but i don't.. (actually that would put you in a position you evidently despise).. that's how the discussion is made you know? that maybe some people with similar opinions are trying to make uniform statement. i see some minor faults in the text but that really doesn't mean that the whole text is wrong.. if 1 or 2 of 100 arguments are wrong it doesn't mean that the whole argumentation is also wrong... that just means that it could be done better.. but it always could be a little bit better, couldn't it?

i hope that it's clear now and we won't mess another thread with two of us not understanding each other...

[xsecx]

...and that's exactly the point where you put words in my mouth.. i'm not a jew, i'm not a christian and i'm not a muslim (and i suspect you were thinking i am)... yes, Islam seems more reasonable than Christianity to me (and that's what i've stated in the "christianity x sxe" and also in the "logic and religion" thread), but that really doesn't make me a practicing muslim.. yet i'm not a pure atheist, that's true...


Your statements implied belief and never stated otherwise.
Statements like "I do believe in Jesus as a human, maybe a prophet.."
If you think he's a prophet, then you'd have to believe in the abrahamic god.



the reason why i was so much defending various religions are statements just like this one: "you follow an abrahamic religion so it makes sense that you're used to just ignoring things that don't make sense".. making every world believer look like an idiot would make you look like an idiot i guess.. it's not that simple and you know that.. you try to stigmatize a group based on its believes and try to deduce some hypothetical behavior pattern or even level of inteligence .. shit, that is totally comparable to mild racism for me... (and no, i'm not saying you're actually a racist person in any way)...
anyway - you surely agree with everything for 100% but i don't.. (actually that would put you in a position you evidently despise).. that's how the discussion is made you know? that maybe some people with similar opinions are trying to make uniform statement.


If you can't judge a group on what they believe. Given what's professed in abrahamic religions, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who professes belief in it. I am an atheist. It wouldn't make sense if I really understood and accepted other peoples belief in god, would it? The abrahamic tradition is full of bullshit, oppression and contradictions, so yes, I do think anyone who follows it is a moron.



i see some minor faults in the text but that really doesn't mean that the whole text is wrong.. if 1 or 2 of 100 arguments are wrong it doesn't mean that the whole argumentation is also wrong... that just means that it could be done better.. but it always could be a little bit better, couldn't it?


Your minor faults were that the person that writing it misunderstood one of the main supposed beliefs of christianity. I don't see how that could be considered minor or put into question the other statements made, since the author apparently has a questionable understanding of the subject matter.

[lo0m]

shit, where's my morning response ??

[xsecx]

shit, where's my morning response ??

not there. there's nothing indicating a deletion so most likely a browser hiccup.

[lo0m]

naaah! :-) ok, i will put it quick and clean.
1) if someone says "maybe there's God" does that make him a believer? surely not, that would made him an agnostic. you picked just the only statement that could imply i'm a follower of Islam.. i believe there are statements in those two threads that could prove the other, but that does not really matter. i'm not a follower of any abrahamic religion, i'm putting it crystal clear so there can be no misunderstanding ...
2) actually it would make more sense if you would understand others people belief in God.. that would put you in a position of an informed oponent and you would propably understand that they are the same as you or me. do they have different opinions on different topics? sure, just like we both have.. anyway - you vilify believers for just picking those things they want to and then you do the same - you could as easily pick "love, compassion and charity", but you've picked "bullshit, oppression and contradictions" as characteristic of religion .. and you've tried to convince me that I see only negatives in animal testing? :-)
3) the mistake would be a big mistake if that would be a mistake in core of the pamphlet.. this is not the case.. if 1 or 2 of 100 arguments is somehow mistaken it does not disqualify his other arguments nor the message of the pamphlet.. so, the pamphlet is not perfect.. well, i can live with it...

[xsecx]

naaah! :-) ok, i will put it quick and clean.
1) if someone says "maybe there's God" does that make him a believer? surely not, that would made him an agnostic. you picked just the only statement that could imply i'm a follower of Islam.. i believe there are statements in those two threads that could prove the other, but that does not really matter. i'm not a follower of any abrahamic religion, i'm putting it crystal clear so there can be no misunderstanding ...


If you're talking about a specific god and not just any god, then yes, it does. it means you believe in the religious texts enough to think that their telling of things is plausible. And yeah it wasn't the only post, there was this one, but I left it out because the first one proved the point.

"well, that's your opinion so don't put it like it's truth.. for other may be absence of God illogical... if you'll look in the nature, you'll see patterns... everywhere.. and some people see in them a work of God... it's not like that faith is for idiots.. one of the greatest scientists are/were believers and i'm sure they approched faith from logical perspective... btw the existence of God cannot be refutated with logic proof.. that's a known thing.. and yes, i am talking about THE logic, as scientific discipline"

When you're talking about God you're talking about the abrahamic version.




2) actually it would make more sense if you would understand others people belief in God.. that would put you in a position of an informed oponent and you would propably understand that they are the same as you or me. do they have different opinions on different topics? sure, just like we both have.. anyway - you vilify believers for just picking those things they want to and then you do the same - you could as easily pick "love, compassion and charity", but you've picked "bullshit, oppression and contradictions" as characteristic of religion .. and you've tried to convince me that I see only negatives in animal testing? :-)


If I could understand other peoples belief in the supernatural, then i'd be an agnostic. I don't, so I'm not. I could, except those concepts aren't tied to any given religion, so why would I? When you're pointing out issues with a religious belief, why would you focus on messages of the positive? Especially in this case where the negative, is really negative has far reaching effects that still impact peoples lives today?



3) the mistake would be a big mistake if that would be a mistake in core of the pamphlet.. this is not the case.. if 1 or 2 of 100 arguments is somehow mistaken it does not disqualify his other arguments nor the message of the pamphlet.. so, the pamphlet is not perfect.. well, i can live with it...

You're a really easy sell then. If someone is presenting themselves as an expert on something and you know they're wrong about the subject they're supposed to be an expert on, you still believe them. I guess it's good to have gullible people on earth.

[lo0m]

If you're talking about a specific god and not just any god, then yes, it does. it means you believe in the religious texts enough to think that their telling of things is plausible. And yeah it wasn't the only post, there was this one, but I left it out because the first one proved the point.
no, it does not. it just means that you're open-minded enough to respect others beliefs to that point that you're questioning why are their dragged to religion.. it's not about faith, it's about possibility..



"well, that's your opinion so don't put it like it's truth.. for other may be absence of God illogical... if you'll look in the nature, you'll see patterns... everywhere.. and some people see in them a work of God... it's not like that faith is for idiots.. one of the greatest scientists are/were believers and i'm sure they approched faith from logical perspective... btw the existence of God cannot be refutated with logic proof.. that's a known thing.. and yes, i am talking about THE logic, as scientific discipline"

When you're talking about God you're talking about the abrahamic version.

and this post proves what? that i'm a muslim/jew/christian? :-) you must be kidding me.. i only rejected your position of "knowing all". your attitude do disqualify every belief/opinion that is not yours with demagogic so-called arguments. there are words like "maybe", "some people" so i can't even understand why are you thinking that it somehow represents me or my personal faith. the only things i've stated unambiguously are that there are patterns in nature, that some great scientists were believers and that god's existence cannot be logically refutated. well, that's all truth..




If I could understand other peoples belief in the supernatural, then i'd be an agnostic. I don't, so I'm not. I could, except those concepts aren't tied to any given religion, so why would I? When you're pointing out issues with a religious belief, why would you focus on messages of the positive? Especially in this case where the negative, is really negative has far reaching effects that still impact peoples lives today?


oh, now you didn't get me right or you're just pretending? i picked those positives only in oposition to those negatives (and only negatives) you've picked. if you want an objective look on religion, you must examine both negatives and positives.



You're a really easy sell then. If someone is presenting themselves as an expert on something and you know they're wrong about the subject they're supposed to be an expert on, you still believe them. I guess it's good to have gullible people on earth.

no, you can't be that dumb, i don't believe that. anyway, we have person A and person B. Person A states that marijuana is bad for health because of - lung stress, brain stress and smelly feet. Person B also states that marijuana is bad for health - he agrees with person A about lungs and brain but he knows that the thing with smelly feet is bullshit. Yet, they both share the same opinion on marijuana.. what a gullible and easy sell person B is!! hope you can see now how flabby your argument was..

huh - we're off topic again. you can spare your reply as i won't read it anyway. and next time you'll want to question anyone's faith give yourself a slap and mind your own business..

[xsecx]

no, it does not. it just means that you're open-minded enough to respect others beliefs to that point that you're questioning why are their dragged to religion.. it's not about faith, it's about possibility..

So thinking that someone was a prophet isn't about faith? There's a fundamental difference in believing in the possibility of some kind of god and believing there's a likelihood that of one specific version, and one specific telling about that specific version.



and this post proves what? that i'm a muslim/jew/christian? :-) you must be kidding me.. i only rejected your position of "knowing all". your attitude do disqualify every belief/opinion that is not yours with demagogic so-called arguments. there are words like "maybe", "some people" so i can't even understand why are you thinking that it somehow represents me or my personal faith. the only things i've stated unambiguously are that there are patterns in nature, that some great scientists were believers and that god's existence cannot be logically refutated. well, that's all truth..


The phrasing of it was representational of your own beliefs. If they weren't, then the way you chose your words represented that you did. That the patterns in nature were there because of the abrahamic god and that faith isn't for idiots. So you have faith, and therefore apparently because of this and many other reasons, are an idiot.





oh, now you didn't get me right or you're just pretending? i picked those positives only in oposition to those negatives (and only negatives) you've picked. if you want an objective look on religion, you must examine both negatives and positives.


Why would I want to give an objective look on religion when I'm an atheist and not objective about it all? Is this such a hard concept for you to understand? You're a vegan right? Do you give an objective view on all animal rights issues? If I honestly believe that religion is a bad thing, why would I say anything that was positive about it?




no, you can't be that dumb, i don't believe that. anyway, we have person A and person B. Person A states that marijuana is bad for health because of - lung stress, brain stress and smelly feet. Person B also states that marijuana is bad for health - he agrees with person A about lungs and brain but he knows that the thing with smelly feet is bullshit. Yet, they both share the same opinion on marijuana.. what a gullible and easy sell person B is!! hope you can see now how flabby your argument was..


See, this is where you demonstrate that you don't actually understand the point I'm trying to make. In this statement, person's A credibility is completely shot and therefore their entire opinion is put into question. If you don't question person A's credibility on the entire subject, then yes you are either gullible or stupid or both.



huh - we're off topic again. you can spare your reply as i won't read it anyway. and next time you'll want to question anyone's faith give yourself a slap and mind your own business..

I love it when people say shit like this. Nothing compels you to reply. but then you do, and try and make some smart ass remark that makes you feel like you've won that day.

[xSouthernEdgex]

I like religion arguments but I reading threads about them always starts off fun but then turns into a chore as walls of text start smacking me in the face.