It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unfair criticism of the Christian religion...

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rusethorcain


Amen.


Amen?

Amen-Ra?

What does Egyptian mythology have to do with this?

Sorry, I just had to say that.


Anyways, I am enjoying the thread all, many good posts. This is a good discussion and I am amazed and happy that almost everyone is keeping it civil and having a friendly debate.

I would love to see this friendly attitude more often in other religion threads. That would be really nice.




posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Its about time man grew up and took responsibility for himself rather than indulging in one of the many frauds featuring aliens indulging in hubris that either regard us as slaves or Kentucky Fried Chicken.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by marsvoltafan74
 


i'm a live and let live kinda' guy. i don't hold any ones belief against them until it turns personal and they preach. i can not stand be preached to without getting in a word. this is my main argument about christians.

another thing that drives me nuts is taking the bible out of context. it is very common, and i have a feeling that it's not always intentional.
like in the op.




Also Matt 5:5-9. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth... Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy... Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."





5 Blessed are the 1meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 1 Psa 37:11 6 Blessed are they which do hunger and 1thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 1 Isa 55:1 7 Blessed are the 1merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 1 Prov 11:17, Matt 6:14, Matt 18:33 8 Blessed are the 1pure in heart: for they shall 2see God. 1 Psa 24:4 2 Heb 12:14, Rev 22:4 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the 1children of God. 1 Matt 5:45, Luke 6:35, Rom 8:14



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by marsvoltafan74
Religion by its nature is not intended to dominate and control but connect us with what we believe. The flawed nature is in the church not the religion. Never has a belief killed someone, only people who wrongly put that belief in action.


So,
Christians DO commit sins which their religion tells people not to?

Which is the definition of hypocrisy.


No it isn't.

If I subscribe to a faith that says "don't steal" and I steal, I am weak and not right with my faith.

If I steal, admonish you to not steal, and go back my stealing, that is hypocrisy.

Get your insults straight, please.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by autowrench
reply to post by marsvoltafan74
 


Actually, I have read the KJV Bible, and several other Bibles too, and the criticism aimed at Christians is well deserved in my considered opinion. Christians are against anything fun, and they are anti: gays, abortion, yoga, meditation, psychological counselling, reflexology, acupuncture, tai chi, martial arts, ayurvedic medicine, biofeedback etc. They claim that acupuncture, yoga and meditation invoke a demonic spiritual power since it is Eastern mysticism. They hate Wiccans, Muslims, Pagans, and any other religious faith that is not them.


Nice prejudice there! I am a Christian, and I am in favour of fun (went to a Cubs game today, that was a lot of fun.) Aside from abortion, I am not against anything in your list. You want to be gay? Who cares? You want to practice yoga, meditation, biofeedback? Go for it, I know a number of Christians who practice it as well.

I don't hate any of the people on your list, sorry. Don't really hate anyone, in fact, even people who lie about my faith, insult me because I have a belief that they don't, and tell me their main goal in life is the destruction of things that are of the highest importance to me.



They claim the only way to get to Heaven is to: Take Jesus, (a made up godman) into your heart and soul, that is, give over your immortal soul to a man who lived a long time ago.


Yes, this is the core of Christian theology. We gotta believe in something, you know. If you spent the time to read the theology, you might even understand WHY we believe that. But feel free to continuing your hating.



Christians claim all ET beings are Demons, and that means all of the Creator's created beings on all planets.


Another fine example of prejudice. I am a Christian and I have never claimed that "ET beings" are demons. There's nothing in the Bible that dictates that there is no life on other planets, and nothing to indicate that, if there is, it is evil.



Answer your question fully, OP?


If the question was "Please demonstrate prejudice and bigotry by applying your biased view of some fundamentalists to all Christians" yes, I think you've done fine.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


Kapyong, every post of yours I have seen so far is filled with hatred, vitriol and seem largely aimed at merely attacking Christians and spreading negative misinformation about all of us.

Why? Are you just here to spread hate against Christians and derail any thread you see with discussion about Christianity?

With out exception all of your threads in your member profile are anti-Jesus and attempting to disprove he existed. You post on no other topics. Why is that? What is your agenda?

What happened that made you hate Christianity so much that you would come to a forum to only post hate about them? Interestingly enough, your actions here are exactly what this thread is about and serves as a great example of the unfair and often inaccurate criticism Christians must deal with. I think that understanding the source of your angst may actually help this discussion.

I'm sorry you hate us so much and I hope in the future you change your mind.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   
If the churches, the very people who teach us religion, are corrupted... why, this means... this mean that, hmm... yep! My personal beliefs remain intact. My particular belief has warned it`s believers of just such a thing. So, for those who continue to trust greedy liars, I cannot speak for them. But there are some people who really do understand the message. No, I don`t mean the "humble servant of God" at the pulpit who owns 2 houses, drives a cadillac, and wears gold other than in his teeth or as a wedding ring. I mean that guy who stopped and gave you a ride and loaned you a gascan that one time you ran out of gas out on a dark & lonely highway. The stranger you met who shared her pot with you at the Tom Petty concert. The co-worker or customer at your work place who had a real smile and genuinely cared so it made your day a little better. The police officers out there who go the extra mile in their job and the ones who stand up against corruption. THESE PEOPLE CAN BE (ugh srry cps) christians, muslims, hindus, buddhists, atheists, jews, agnostics, mormons, or even jehova`s witnesses... ok probably not jehova`s witnesses, but you get the point right? That was a joke, by the way. I highly doubt any witnesses are in here but just in case, i apologize. More to the point, it`s rather ignorant to write off a supposedly perfect being (god), because he/she has been misrepresented by imperfect humans, some trying their best and some intentionally decieving. Life didn`t just pop up out of a primordial ooze, or else it would be continuing to pop up and we would have noticed by now.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
I don't criticize your (or anyone's) beliefs, aside from correcting misrepresentations of my faith and poor logical arguments intended to make a case against Christianity (as above.) I support your right to not believe, and appreciate the insights that thoughtful atheists and agnostics bring to many discussions.


Im not using that as an argument to attack christianity, Im speaking from experience, and to why christianity is usually the target rather than other religions. I dont think all Christians are alike, just like there are many "morons" within the atheist ranks that make us look like a bunch of religion haters.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Re: Chillimac

I, on the other hand, HAVE put some relevant questions, and here (as elsewhere) I don't get answers.

I have a rather extensive knowledge of christian theology, history, doctrines and 'schismatology', whereas a considerable part of the christians I have debated with hardly know the bible, even less the consequences of the various christian doctrines (bible-based or not) and in the case of other religions christians often INVENT 'facts' about them.

What christians DO respond to is simplistic 'is' /'isn't' sandbox argumentation, where the important issues can be lost in a haze of semantic twists.

And in their whining: 'Why do you pick on us?' they don't even have the spine to distance themselves from that part of the bible, and those christians, who have PICKED on mankind like a ton of bricks for at least 1500 years.

I dare any christian to start a serious dialogue with me from as deep a platform as you wish. Please don't offend my or your own intelligence by suggesting bible-citations as such a 'deep' platform. whereas I e.g. would consider a discussion of 'faith' per se as a reasonable subject.

Former experiences have shown, that NO christians are willing to risk entering such a risky business. Come, deliever the sermons, and run before anything can threaten your schemes.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





I have a rather extensive knowledge of christian theology, history, doctrines and 'schismatology', whereas a considerable part of the christians I have debated with hardly know the bible, even less the consequences of the various christian doctrines (bible-based or not) and in the case of other religions christians often INVENT 'facts' about them.


I find this is the most common reason for arguments to arise when debating with a Christian- Many of them are offended or intimidated by the fact that you know more about their religion than they do. And a sad fact that is.
In my opinion, the people who have taken the time to properly research the subject and question the scriptures with healthy caution- are the people who end up either Agnostic or Atheist.

I think that one must understand that most people have been spoon fed with ideals and doctrines, but have hardly ever taken the time to weigh the pros and cons themselves. Most leave their bible study for church days and that's pretty much where their 'research' ends....other than church made booklets and pamphlets/brochures... They see their religion or belief system as an extension of themselves- so, when one criticizes or questions their religion, they take it as a personal attack rather than a healthy debate on the subject. I think they feel that one is criticizing or questioning them.

It will always be a tricky situation unless you are speaking to someone who is truly seeking the truth, and who does not attach doctrines to themselves as a person. You just need to know when to cut your losses.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I will assume that my name on the top of your post means you're calling on me to answer you.

I however will not give you a sermon. Your post above is little more than chest beating and presents no coherent reason why Christians as a whole deserve persecution. All you have touched on is that some Christians do contradictory things. In your earlier post you merely talk about how Christians have denominations and don't agree about certain talking points.

Name one group of humans that does not fit that description.
Scientists? No, the argue about each others findings and data all the time, in fact thats an important part of the process.
Muslims? No, they are similar with different sects and a small part that does things the larger part does not condone.
Hindus? No, same thing, many sects.
Politicians? LOL, certainly not.

Point being none of your 'questions' or points are exclusive to Christianity. So again, why are Christians deserving of your hate and mockery when scientist, other religions, and politicians are not?

From your first post:

So who ARE the real christians? Those who can find the 'right' interpretation? You need another two thousand years and another two thousand schisms?

Maybe you can even agree on, that the book of confusion CAN be read any old way, but then what makes any of you christians at all?

Here you demonstrate (by mockery) that you do not know what a real Christian is. And the first question presupposes that we, as Christians, have the ability to judge others as real or not.

I'll make it simple. A Christian is one who attempts to follow Christ's teachings and accepts him as the son of God. Thats it. Christian means "Christ-like", not "Christ Clone". It has nothing to do with interpreting the bible. As such, another 2 thousand years is meaningless.

Also, your asking people to distinguish real Christian from Christians who profess to be so, but in reality are not. That is not our job, nor do we have the mind reading faculties to attempt to do so, that is Gods job. (Yes I know some Christians may be arrogant enough to try, but again, that attitude is not exclusive to Christianity, being judgmental is a human trait as some anti-Christian statements in this very thread are evident of.)

The second set of sentences in your quote make little logical sense. You imply, if I interpret your grammar correctly, that Christians cannot be defined if we agree we can read the Bible any 'old' way. But reading the bible has nothing to do with being a Christian. As you have professed above, you are a biblical scholar, are you a Christian? From your other statements you are claiming you are not. So, since reading the bible doesn't make one a Christian, how can reading it any old way invalidate Christianity?

You keep calling it the book of confusion. It doesn't confuse me. Perhaps reading it any old way isn't working for you.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   
I think that Xtians really do not understand much about the psychology of their followers. Xtians are often an intolerant and judgemental group of people. I could write the same about any fundamentalist religion. The key is to re-examine our conduct not in the light of scripture but in the light of humanitarianism. The

So can anyone tell if the intolerance and sheer arrogance of the xtians existed before they became xtian or was it an effect of their adoption of the xtian god?.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tripple_Helix
reply to post by bogomil
 



In my opinion, the people who have taken the time to properly research the subject and question the scriptures with healthy caution- are the people who end up either Agnostic or Atheist.

I think that one must understand that most people have been spoon fed with ideals and doctrines, but have hardly ever taken the time to weigh the pros and cons themselves. Most leave their bible study for church days and that's pretty much where their 'research' ends


Or, they do not feel the need to debate with people or are not debaters of any kind. I think, sure, there are those that you describe, but to claim them as the majority is purely speculative. In fact I know many Christians that are profound intellectuals and believe what they do for very good reasons.

I think what people of your position are not taking into account is that perhaps Christians, in fact, do have valid reasoning and evidence for their beliefs. Additionally, they have personal experiences that lead to no other conclusion. Personal experiences override even the most skeptical of reasoning. If you were to see a Sasquatch walk into your house and eat your cat, you would have no other choice but to conclude that A). Sasquatch is real. B). He eats cats. C). You need a new Cat before the kids get home.


They see their religion or belief system as an extension of themselves- so, when one criticizes or questions their religion, they take it as a personal attack rather than a healthy debate on the subject. I think they feel that one is criticizing or questioning them.


This is true, but can this not apply to all beliefs as well? Certainly it does to politics. Also, consider that many times we, in fact, do face attacks or criticism's. And lets be honest, who likes being called an idiot or a 'moron who believes in fairy tails', day in and day out. For example, even though you use tact, your first assertion still implys that anyone with who can think for themselves is either an agnostic or atheist. Since I am not an agnostic or atheist, I can only come to the conclusion that you mean I cannot think for myself. I think most people would be defensive in such a situation. (For the record, I can think for myself
)

Some, however, have faced real experiences and evidence that, while would mean little to others, demands belief even through the criticisms. But, being belittled and insulted still sucks.

I do not believe that just because Christians don't always come out and debate you or offer perfect replies to your criticisms that means we are all "spoon fed with ideals and doctrines, but have hardly ever taken the time to weigh the pros and cons themselves." I think that means they just don't want to debate you. Or are not great at thinking under pressure or debating in general. I know I'm hit or miss when it comes to face to face situations like that.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Chillimac
 





Personal experiences override even the most skeptical of reasoning.


But they SHOULDN'T!! Our brains make mistakes and our senses easily fooled. That's exactly why we (as in: people who prefer science and facts over pure speculation and belief) use scientific method to TEST and VERIFY claims.

I'll even give you an example. The picture below seems to be moving. Your personal experience and brain tells you it's somehow moving...yet we know of course it's only an illusion. We know that, because we TESTED and EXAMINED the picture rationally. According to your statement, your personal experience (aka seeing the picture "move") overrides any critical and scientific examination.



Also, think about this for a second: There are billions of people on this planet, and billions of those are religious. They are all grouped into main religions, sub-sects, and other groups...and each one of them believes in a different god with different character traits and/or power. Funny enough, all of them believe THEIR god is the right one. What's also funny is that the idea that there's a god who is totally schizophrenic, as pretending to be someone else each time he communicates with humans, isn't exactly giving religions more credibility.

If people just looked at the scriptures as a "guide" on how to live your life (if they are really looking for a guide), all would be good. Making up things or taking the bible literally is beyond crazy and also kinda sad. Why are we allowing people to vote who firmly believe the earth is only 6000 years old when we KNOW FOR A FACT that this isn't the case? We don't let mentally challenged people who believe the universe floats on the back of a giant turtle vote either, or people with an IQ that counts as "mentally challenged"...so why are we letting people vote who totally disregard FACTS?

[edit on 8-8-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Fascinatingly ignorant responses to Christianity from a board usually steeped in intelligent responses. I'll begin with probably the best quote on the topic from G.K. Chesterton's Everlasting Man:

"...the next best thing to being really inside Christendom is to be really outside it. And a particular point is that the popular critics of Christianity are not really outside it. ... the best relation to our spiritual home is to be near enough to love it. But the next best is to be far enough away not to hate it. It is the contention of these pages that while the best judge of Christianity is a Christian, the next best judge would be something more like a Confucian. The worst judge of all is the man now most ready with his judgments; the ill-educated Christian turning gradually into the ill-tempered agnostic, entangled in the end of a feud of which he never understood the beginning, blighted with a sort of hereditary boredom with he knows not what, and already weary of hearing what he has never heard. "

To say that a human institution that has spanned the globe for two millennium has done evil is to say that it is a human institution but to remain willfully ignorant of Her great benefit to humanity is to also display one's ignorance of history, philosophy, science, education, art, politics and, most importantly, the concept of charity toward one's fellow man.

If we were to remain hunter gatherers it might not have been necessary for such a global spiritual intervention directing the character of man since we are very much the product of our environments. Hunter gatherers had the natural cohesion of survival and a deep connection to the natural world which still teaches the heart of man as much about the reality of existence as any religion. As the world tipped forever beyond that connection a force intervened at the crossroads of history in the Roman Empire and taught man something entirely unique. Not unique to the individual heart of a single person contemplating 'who moved him first', but unique to the character of what was fast becoming a global society.

I would pleased to answer any criticisms of the church as I do on a daily basis. Typically people haven't actually delved deep enough either into their own religion or the criticism they have of it to weather more than a one or two sentence retort. When 'the crusades' are thrown at present day Christians, we are expected to dutifully moan and concur. I, however, shut most critiques down with simple questions that display the lack of true historical knowledge on the part of the critic like: what century? in response to what? who sacked the Library at Alexandria? Even the more modern and fanciful critiques using words like Concordat or Pius the XII seem to wither in front of a little hard evidence like citing the New York Times of the day or the Chief Rabii of Rome.

That said, critiques of the church are always warranted as her sins and flaws are many. When Napoleon said to a Cardinal at the time he would destroy the church his response was absolutely appropriate. "“We, the clergy, with our sins and stupidity have been trying to destroy the Church for 1,800 years. What makes you think you can do better?”

The questions I will leave with is if that power is an inevitability, I ask who would you put in her place?

[edit on 8-8-2010 by chuber]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
I dare any christian to start a serious dialogue with me from as deep a platform as you wish. Please don't offend my or your own intelligence by suggesting bible-citations as such a 'deep' platform. whereas I e.g. would consider a discussion of 'faith' per se as a reasonable subject.

Former experiences have shown, that NO christians are willing to risk entering such a risky business. Come, deliever the sermons, and run before anything can threaten your schemes.


I'm not interested in delivering sermons, but I would be happy to have a reasonable dialog with you or anyone else who has developed a contrary point of view with the same (or similar) background reference.

However, I also recognize that there are two points of basic contention that make these conversations difficult -- perspective and expectation. You and I both have our biases, and when we study a subject with a pre-existing bias, we will generally find supportive material and ignore (or interpret in our favour) material that conflicts with that bias.

It is useless, for example, for me to discuss Biblical theology with someone who simply doesn't believe that the Bible holds some degree of truth. If it one's contention that the Bible is fictitious, that ends the conversation before it begins. If, on the other hand, some common ground is agreed upon, discussion can commence on the differences.

I am not a fundamentalist, we can begin with that. I believe that the basic premise of Christ's two commandments (Love God, Love each other) is the whole basis of Christian faith, and doctrine and theology which is in conflict with that message is suspect, and doctrine, theology and reality which is not in conflict with that message is something that may be considered for its truthfulness outside of the religious view.

My background is not one of having been "spoon-fed" anything. Though my faith has been pretty strong and constant since my early teens, I have struggled with the church many times over the years, and reconciled myself through science, reasoning, and orthodoxy. This is not a common approach, but it has worked for me, and it's one of the reasons that I'm not only unthreatened by disbelievers, I appreciate their point of view, as it helps me to hone and evaluate my own beliefs.

With that in mind, feel free to ask me what you like.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
For what my opinion is worth, this thread is now manifesting competent, open and two-way communication. And thanks Tripple_Helix and Chillimac for your answers. This post will be a composite to both of you (and others participating in this development on the thread).

My 'chestbeating' results from too often being met by purely quantitative arguments. I wanted to prevent steamroller-rethorics or the sad habit from certain christians (some also appearing on this thread) of choosing not only 'homeground', e.g. using the bible as the epistemological base, but also singlehandedly deciding the rules of the game. E.g.: Logic is 'out', faith is 'in'.

To avoid black/white confrontations on ideological grounds, my own 'allegiances' are as follows: I can be described as an agnostic concerning organised forms of theism. Otherwise I have a (original) gnostic cosmogony, a buddhist cosmology, ethics very close to the gospels, am very critical to reductionist materialstic science, very positive to quantum mechanics and have spent years on formulating a support of the idea, that there's more to being/existence than the physical or mundane.

There are many facets in a debate concerning ideology, but as an answer to Chillimac (and others)..... sure, a majority of idologies contain a faction of hotheads, who eventually will settle differences through violence. And I am as sarcastic or mocking to a doctrinal hard-core communist, as I've been here towards those christians, who can't 'live and let live', I equally criticize 'scientism', when it exceeds its competence, and new-ager cottage-industry 'theories' I consider halfbaked and worthless. So I'm either just grumpy or alternatively allergic to doctrines of private ultimate 'truths'.

A consideration on both the topic of the present thread and on Chillimac's specific answer to me: Ofcourse a generalization of all christians being exactly the same is unjust and imprecise, but I think, you are yourselves to blame. Christianity schisms constantly, many of you fight between yourselves, you profess to 'jesus-christianity', but take the old testament into the deal on a wholepackage basis, a few christians even question the bible as such. How on earth are we heathens expected to keep track of who are the good or bad guys in this mess. Especially as most christians seem to support the 'bad' guys at least passively (this sentence ofcourse open for later clarification).

Chillimac; I find your answer to this christian confusion peculiar: "This is not our job". You seem well-informed, and ofcourse it can't come as a surprise, that some past and present christians in deed and doctrine have gone beyond even the nazis in atrocities. Wouldn't it be in your own interest to present a more digestible version of christianity, by defining yourself more clearly. Sorry, getting a little mean now (hopefully not personal): Christians I have debated with are usually conveniently vague, so as not to be made accountable for anything at all. "It wasn't us producing all this judgementalism (e.g. the inquisition), and as to whether we support it or not through accepting all the commands of killing in the old testament, this is not our job to have opinions on, we leave it to god to make such decisions and give the orders."

But who decides what to believe in? And whose' hands lighted the fires or threw the stones?

I have no problems with, that you define yourself as a follower of Christ's teachings, and also that you believe he's the son of god. But I'll make the educated guess, that your original information on this is from the gospels. So you DO define yourself according to some tangible source? Or did I miss something?

On the need to debate: You're here...also. I can't speak for others, but on a personal level, I only argue this way with potential intruders in my life. And I most certainly feel many christians to be intruders, though you may not be amongst them. My main motive for being here is to clearly tell all invasive missionaries (and that crowd): SO FAR, BUT NOT FURTHER. Pick up that line, anybody needing examples.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Well - if you like me believe that religion is just an early way of spinning the politics of any country or culture - then you woulden't care too much about lines and phrases - because it dosent really matter.

We got politicians today who has one hand being good, and another hand being ... let's say "lesser good". We know from history that the winning side allways write history, and when its practically impossible to make any desent critism of whats being told in the bibel (we cant ask the authors as an instance, or check up on his enemies of what they think if they dissagree with him) I think we should accept the fact of us being the ones whos lost in translation and interpretations. The book is probably a "good" story, but how can you be sure any of it is true?? I mean - the hole concept of christianity is held up with the beliefs and not the proofs. The bible is an account of what some thought to be true or wanted people to be true - its no proof of anything.

Why? Well - scientists have escavated sites for years and years, trying to find the actual sites of historical cities and cultures that has been mentioned in the bible. They have in countless cases found the descriptions in the bible to be either inaccurate (in a large scale) or plainly wrong! In cases like these the bible states that gigantic cities of wealth was to lie in that region in that country - holding courts of superwealthy kings and queens - the problems remain when you find a mediocre proof of nothing more than a "tribe" .. not even close to represent the descriptions of how populated the cities was believed to be - according to the bible.

I just read an article (in Danish) where they state that the bible has been re-written so many times, to uphold its crediblity to the present of the believing culture because the strength of the church was diminishing.

In my oppinion its not about "how many love and peace phrases" there are to be found in the bible - its all about credibility... and the bible is low on fuel on that account!



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Re: adjensen

As I already have put myself in the box of being 'judgemental', which I see as having opposing opinions, I can just as well use my 'judgement' to be sympathetic to something for once.

Thanks for your post, adjensen, it was excellent; I have no quarrels with you, though I on an academic level not unexpectedly disagree with major parts of christianity. But I don't feel a need to start a debate on this with you. I don't see you as being overly obsessive about purifying souls through fire, and I on my part won't generally recommend psychiatric treatment for religious delusions, as long as religionists abstain from said fires.

As to the bible holding some truth, I don't doubt that. My attitude has been to ask christians in general to clarify their reference-points, so I'll know when to put on my fireproof clothes or offer them a cup of tea. And if it's fiction, so what! A lot of valuable things in life are fictive in origin.

According to my buddistic (and quantum-mechanistic) cosmology cosmic existence could very well be an illusion, making 'reality' into 'relative reality', where things are, what we (that is: 'Us' and cosmos together) make them into. Absolute truth is presently beyond me, but I do have opinions on functionality, e.g. ethics etc.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Chillimac
 



Or, they do not feel the need to debate with people or are not debaters of any kind. I think, sure, there are those that you describe, but to claim them as the majority is purely speculative. In fact I know many Christians that are profound intellectuals and believe what they do for very good reasons.


Well, from personal experience (as you speak of later in your post) they are usually the ones starting the argument, and are often surprised and dumbfounded by the response they get. Which is usually a threat to them, or so it seems- judging by the way their tempers flare when you point out the hypocrisies of many of the scriptures.



I think what people of your position are not taking into account is that perhaps Christians, in fact, do have valid reasoning and evidence for their beliefs. Additionally, they have personal experiences that lead to no other conclusion.


Sure, within themselves- they have a reason to believe what they do and it is their full right to practice their belief. I do not deny them that. Obviously all Christians are not the same- I say that because I have not met every single one of them, but every Christian I have met, surely does have the attitude I described in my previous post- so I too am speaking from personal experience. And my post is of course only my opinion. The responses I have received, narrowed down are basically- "do not question the bible, for it is the word of god. Your questioning is the result of the devil occupying your mind and you will burn in hell one day because of it"



This is true, but can this not apply to all beliefs as well? Certainly it does to politics. Also, consider that many times we, in fact, do face attacks or criticism's.


Sure- I completely agree with you on this. It does apply to all beliefs if you have closed your mind off to all other possibilities, other than the belief you have taken on as your own. I believe it is vital to keep an open mind and not attach anything to yourself that you cannot prove for sure....after all- the bibles of the worlds are merely viewpoints of the people who wrote them, and none of them can be regarded as concretal fact.



For example, even though you use tact, your first assertion still implys that anyone with who can think for themselves is either an agnostic or atheist. Since I am not an agnostic or atheist, I can only come to the conclusion that you mean I cannot think for myself. I think most people would be defensive in such a situation.


No, please do not take it up the wrong way. I am by no means implying that you and Christians cannot think for themselves- I am sure you all are very capable... I just believe- in my humble opinion, that most religions use fear tactics in order to keep their followers. And many people are so blinded by their fear, that they are too afraid to even explore other possibilities because they have been taught that questioning is wrong and that they will be condemned for it. And from my own experience- reading a bit more about the religions of the world and finding certain acts in the bible that I do not agree with- has turned me into a....I don't know- I cannot label myself as anything at the moment because I have not learned nearly enough yet to 'make up my mind', so to speak.

Continued......




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join