Christianity in a nutshell

by serotonin_wraith 105 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Gopher

  We all believe in something.

  This depends on your definition of "believe". If you say "I believe the sun will come up tomorrow", is that faith? Is it belief? But if you say "I believe it will rain" or "I believe the plane will come on time" -- then you're putting your trust in someone's prediction or a pilot's ability to meet a time schedule.

  Belief in a God is not on a plane with accepting scientific research. Belief in God is a spiritual act. Accepting scientific research is a mental act.

  If you buy into evolution theory, then, since men came up with the theory, you are putting your trust in men.

  So then, do you "buy into" the theory of relativity? if so, are you blindly trusting a dead man named Einstein? Would you bet against the theory of relativity?
• 

  Zico

  Serotonin: There is a difference between trying to assist people's thinking and just being an intolerant bigot. Try to be careful not to fall in to the latter, because, in my opinion, that's how you're coming across... just my opinion.
  
  "Can being a Christian be as harmful as being a member of the KKK, a nazi, or a suicide bomber? Hmm, well let's consider all the 'witches' and heretics burnt over hundreds of years"
  
  And while we're at it, why don't we consider all the people that were killed under the regimes of Stalin and Mussolini, atheist leaders? Does that make all atheists bad people? Of course not. To write off a whole group as evil because of the actions of a minority is absurd.
  
  "how about the wars Christians are engaged in right now, how about poisoning children's minds with flawed morals and unfounded fear? Then we have people in Africa dying from AIDS, while at the same time Catholics are over there telling them condoms go against God, and stem cell research being held back by Christians, which has the potential to cure millions. Is it as harmful? No. It's worse."
  
  How about the wars Atheists are engaged in right now? What's your point? As far as I'm aware there are currently no wars being held in the name of Jesus. As for the Catholics, I don't agree in them holding back contraception, but it seems unfair to blame them for the spread of AIDs when it has also been due to sex outside of marriage, something else Catholics believe go against God.
  
  There are 2 billion people in the world who profess to be Christians. If there were 2 billion people in the world who were white supremacists like members of the KKK or the Nazis, we'd certainly have mass ethnic cleansing. To claim that being a member of hate groups that despise most or all races other than their own is equivalent to being a Christian is, again, absurd.
  
  To focus on some of the bad parts of sections of Christianity and claim it makes the whole religion evil is very wrong imo. On the most part, Christianity teaches a message of love, it's mainly the Fundamentalists who preach the hate, and Christianity has done a lot of charitable work, it has done a lot to help the poor and improve conditions for many people in third world countries. No good has ever come from the KKK or the suicide bombers.
  
  "What about the good Christians? Well, what about the good nazis? They didn't ALL go killing, but plenty gave the power and support to those who did. If a group of fairy believers were good, and a few bad apples started doing bad things because it was a message that COULD be got from the fairy beliefs, why not just try to get them all to see fairy belief is ridiculous anyway and cut off the problem at its head. As long as Christianity exists, there will always be those who will think God wants them to do bad things."
  
  There will ALWAYS be people who do bad things. Simple as. There are atheists who have done bad things, buddhists who have done bad things, and Muslims who have done bad things. Removing Christianity will not make the world a better place. In fact, I think a case could be made that without Christian charities, a lot of people in the world would be worse off, but let's not let the good of Christianity get in the way of your intolerance, eh Serotonin?
• 

  Brother Apostate

  All I had to do was see that you have very little knowledge of evolution and cosmology.

  No, you assume I have very little knowledge on these subjects. What you call evidence and good reason I call being misled. You don't know me, so don't assume. Do you know whether I’ve read everything on talk origins? Do you know if I have a degree, and what my degree is in? No. Then don't keep assuming, it shows how presumptuous and ignorant you truly are, troll.

  If something in the original post is untrue, let me know. Which part of that don't you believe?

  If you read my response entitled ‘Christianity in a nutshell" you would know that, now, wouldn’t you? Thanks for proving my point, that you either don’t read or cannot comprehend what you read.

  As far as your lack of understanding when it comes to evolution, I can help you with that if you like.

  Again, more presumptuousness and haughtiness. I don’t need a lecture from you, sonny boy.

  BA- Sheesh, what an arrogant blowhard this little seratonin_wraith is.
• 

  Brother Apostate

  Belief in a God is not on a plane with accepting scientific research. Belief in God is a spiritual act. Accepting scientific research is a mental act.

  Semantics. One looks at something designed, and believes in a designer. Another looks at the same evidence, and finds another explanation. Not all science has the same veracity. Mathematics explains things seen by construction and derivation of numerical representations of observed phenomena to come up with likely explanations. Evolutionary science and archeological science explain things seen by examining evidence and doing detective work to come up with likely explanations. Just as numerous mathematical theories have been proven wrong with time, so many evolutionary and archeolgical conclusions have been proven wrong with time. What is "fact" today is fiction tomorrow, what is "new light" today is dead wrong tomorrow. Sounds lot like religion to me. Caveat emptor applies equally as well.

  If you buy into evolution theory, then, since men came up with the theory, you are putting your trust in men. So then, do you "buy into" the theory of relativity? if so, are you blindly trusting a dead man named Einstein? Would you bet against the theory of relativity?

  I realize that science is a means to explain things. No more, no less. It would not surprise me if in the future Einstein's theory that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared is proven untenable, and a better explanation is adopted. There is no absolute proof for the theory, only an accepted explanation that to date has not been rejected as wrong.

  As time marches on and advancements are made, many things that are now accepted as fact will be shown to be dead wrong, and many things that are now scoffed at will be shown true beyond the pale of doubt.

  Such is the way of history.

  BA- History buff.

  P.S.- Your respectful way of discourse, Gopher, is a breath of fresh air on these kinds of threads.
• 

  serotonin_wraith

  Zico:

  There is a difference between trying to assist people's thinking and just being an intolerant bigot. Try to be careful not to fall in to the latter, because, in my opinion, that's how you're coming across... just my opinion.

  Yeah, it's a tricky one. It's been taboo for such a long time to criticise religious beliefs, that when people do it looks extremely spiteful. If a belief is ridiculous, and people have no evidence to back it up, we usually call them on it. Just look at all the posts here making fun of the JW beliefs. I don't think they make us intolerant bigots. We're just calling a spade a spade.

  And while we're at it, why don't we consider all the people that were killed under the regimes of Stalin and Mussolini, atheist leaders?

  Yeah, this one comes up ALL THE TIME. I've heard it about five times in the last week alone. Those acts were not done in the name of atheism, or because they were atheists. Any more than people do bad things because they don't believe in monsters under their beds.

  How about the wars Atheists are engaged in right now? What's your point?

  The point is that no war is done in the name of atheism. But people do kill because they are Christian.

  Kashmir (Muslims v. Christians), Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Musilms v. Christians), Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Christians) are some modern ones.

  Here we see more violence, based on religious beliefs:

  http://www.biblenetworknews.com/africa/112202_nigeria.html

  As far as I'm aware there are currently no wars being held in the name of Jesus.

  The President of the US seems to think God told him to invade Iraq.

  As for the Catholics, I don't agree in them holding back contraception, but it seems unfair to blame them for the spread of AIDs when it has also been due to sex outside of marriage

  I don't blame them entirely for the spread, but they don't help matters. AIDS is a virus, so you can diminish the chances of getting it with less partners, but as its a virus it won't know if you're married or not, and will just spread to anyone it comes into contact with. You can have it from birth.

  To claim that being a member of hate groups that despise most or all races other than their own is equivalent to being a Christian is, again, absurd.

  Don't all Christians think those who don't put their faith in Jesus deserve God's judgement- death, eternal torture or what have you?

  To focus on some of the bad parts of sections of Christianity and claim it makes the whole religion evil is very wrong imo.

  Spreading lies about our existence is 'evil'. Giving any kind of support to the bad side of Christianity is evil, and this happens when people donate their cash or time. To use the example of the Catholics- a nice moderate Catholic may go to church and hear some good verses from the Bible, etc but by giving money over they're supporting those spreading lies in Africa. It's all connected.

  Christianity has done a lot of charitable work, it has done a lot to help the poor and improve conditions for many people in third world countries

  Who's saying anything bad about charity? Charity is great. But we can do charity work without religion (which is often used as a way to convert people).

  There will ALWAYS be people who do bad things.

  Sure, but let's address some of the things that make people do bad, rather than shrugging our shoulders and simply accepting it.

  In fact, I think a case could be made that without Christian charities, a lot of people in the world would be worse off, but let's not let the good of Christianity get in the way of your intolerance, eh Serotonin?

  I'll plug Christopher Hitchens' fairly famous challenge then- Name a moral action taken or moral statement made by a person of faith that could not have been performed or made by an atheist.

  BA:

  Then don't keep assuming, it shows how presumptuous and ignorant you truly are, troll.

  Name calling aside, I'm not assuming anything. You gave an explanation of what you consider evolution and cosmology to be. It's wrong. Completely wrong. If you did study it, you need to study it again because you're not describing evolution or cosmology.

  If you read my response entitled ‘Christianity in a nutshell" you would know that, now, wouldn’t you?

  I did read it, and it looked like what was in the first post, but a bit more fancy.

  Again, more presumptuousness and haughtiness. I don’t need a lecture from you, sonny boy.

  BA- Sheesh, what an arrogant blowhard this little seratonin_wraith is.

  If you're wrong about evolution, you're simply wrong. It's not arrogant for me to tell you so, whatever my age.

  Now I understand you don't like your beliefs disrespected, but they're too funny to be taken seriously. Don't be surprised if people say 'I'm sorry but this is just laughable'. I don't want to have to look back over your post history to see if you've ever put down the JW beliefs, but I will if I need to, and I will be pointing out that it makes you a hypocrite to complain about having your own beliefs criticised.
• 

  lovelylil

  Seratonin,

  I can agree with you on one thing; we can certainly do without all the "religion" in Christianity. Jesus Christ whom Christians follow was very anti religious organization as evidenced by his scathing comments to the religious leaders of his time. He often pointed out that the religious leaders constantly side-stepped God's simple teachings for their own and established a man made self-righteousness that they insisted all others attain to.

  I feel the problems Jesus encountered are also encountered today. That is why many people are left with a bad taste in their mouth when they hear the term Christian. And sadly, they often then lump all of us in the same boat.

  It may surprise you that although I am Christian, I believe the earth is millions of years old, and I believe in evolution as the means God used to populate the earth and for survival of the species. I am very interested in science and biology. Where my faith comes in is that Scientists cannot create life from nothing (although they can clone a living thing) and cannot conclusively explain how life began. And for me, it began with God. Now, who or what God really is no one really knows. I cannot say for sure that I have all the answers concerning him and no one really can. We cannot "box" God into our ideals and we come off as foolish when we try to. Its obvious to me that even the Bible writers themselves at times struggled with the idea of "God" and how to find words to describe their experience with him.

  That is just what belief in God is, it is not only about what we accept as the written word (the bible), or belief based upon our surroundings (creation) but it comes down to personal experience more than anything else. And this is something that cannot be measured scientifically but is no less real to those of us who do experience "God". Peace, Lilly
• 

  Gopher

  Lilly,

  That was an interesting post! As I have encounters with atheists (like myself), just as much or more attention is focused on organized religion as on the idea of God. I think it's because organized religion seems to present many roadblocks to societal progress, introducing unprovable ideas into science and education, and presenting bigotry and intolerance in the political process. The religious leaders claim to speak for God (God is pro- this or that, God is anti- this or that).

  And as far as the very genesis of life, it cannot be demonstrated or proven whether it came from a personal being (a god) or some kind of force. Although people can draw conclusions, it isn't provable either way.

  I had a question for you though. You said two things I'm having trouble harmonizing:

  Now, who or what God really is no one really knows.

  and

  what we accept as the written word (the bible),

  Since you are Christian, I'm assuming you accept part or all of the Bible. The Bible contains many assertions about the nature of God, telling us who and what he is, what he expects, what he will do (although a lot of that is open to interpretation). So can we really know who or what God is through the Bible, or do you leave room for uncertainty (in your view)?
• 

  lovelylil

  Gopher,

  Thanks for your question. What I meant was that the Bible is written by men and although some were under "inspiration" of Holy Spirit, God did not dictate to them each word to write. Like a boss dictating to a secretary, although many people insist that this is what God did.

  Many do not understand what being under inspiration of God really is. Under inspiration, God's spirit may move you to write about him, but the words are still your words not God's. Where the exception is, imo, is when the prophets claimed God spoke directly to them. In the NT, we do not see this as much. The NT books, except for Revelation (maybe) are not generally Prophetic. Anyway, The Bible writers tried their best to describe their experience with God to the best of their ability but were limited in thier doing so. Why?

  Becasue none of them actually "saw" God! Because the Bible says "No man has seen God". They saw God in different forms, fire, a shining light, like a blazing star, etc. but never actually saw God himself. So how can they explain exactly what or who he is? They can only explain "God" human terms. Using the venacular available to them personally. Now I know many Christians will be angry at me for saying this but it is true. Think about it.

  Although I don't believe humans invented God I just think they tried to explain their experience with him by using descriptive terms available to them in their venacular and this in itself limits us to a point. I know I've personally experienced God's spirit on me myself and really cannot fully explain it to anyone who has never had the experience themselves. For me this does not make God any less real to me but I have to understand that most other people unless they experience God themselves will not just take my word for it.

  Even now, I am probably not explaining this as well as I wish I could. But I think the key point I am making and you made it too is we humans, those who believe in God, all try to claim exclusive possession and understanding of him. And you know what? We may ALL find out we got more wrong than right when the day comes and we "meet" God in person. The fact that we claim exclusive rights to God by setting up man made religions is really laughable. When people claim to be the only speakers for God I often ask them "Did you get God's approval on that?".

  I think Jesus Christ whom I follow the teachings of, also found it laughable that in his time the religious leaders also claimed exclusive ownership of God. If you really read his teachings you will be amazed at how anti-organization he was. He stressed the importance of a personal relationship with God, not a relationship with a man made religious organization. (I will post more about this another time)

  Anyway, I'd love to talk more about this but I have to go to work. Be back in the morning. Feel free to comment and I'll try to answer you tomarrow. Peace, Lilly
• 

  darkuncle29

  I found Dawkins very hostile to people of faith in general. And although he may offer some good arguements, his attitude negates it and many of my friends who are not Christians also find him obnoxious and will not read anything he writes.

  Bingo! He lumps people who practice religion in with people who just have a faith or belief, they are different. And his tone and attitude, he seems to me as scary as Fred Phelps. Wouldn't that be an interesting match?

  As time marches on and advancements are made, many things that are now accepted as fact will be shown to be dead wrong, and many things that are now scoffed at will be shown true beyond the pale of doubt

  This is often overlooked. Many scientists who were ahead of their times, had their lives and careers ruined by their peers and the "establishment". Human nature and group mentality, by any other name...

  Well no, because atheism is not a belief.

  What?

  This makes me smile with incredulity, is it "your thoughts on...", or "your philosophy" or "worldview". what would you call it? And really, when we stop playing with words don't they pretty much have some degree of overlap in usage and meaning?

  Atheists are NOT dogmatic regarding whether God exists.

  ALL atheists, no. Many-Alot-Some, damn straight! The dogmatic ones are becoming like the opposite polarity of freaky-fundy christians, I do my best to stay way away from either end of that spectrum.

  Do all atheists believe the same thing? No. Do all Christians belive the same thing? No. If you comprehend this, it will be apparent by your responses.

  This concept of personal variability, could you call it individuality? is so important yet lacking.

  Science can only postulate on physical observation, it cannot reveal what actually takes place. Scientific theories are only one means of understanding and explaining things. What is laughable to one belief system may be regarded as beyond question by another, and vice versa. It’s human nature. Many believe some scientific theories, but don’t swallow them all. Those that swallow all things scientific are worshippers of science. It is their religion, and scientists are their gods.

  I've said that before, but not as well. I think we need to not harden our thoughts, but allow for a flexibility, allow questions-especially unpopular or un PC ones, only then can we make real progress.

  Interesting arguments people, to those I quoted, thanks.
• 

  5go

  Brother Apostate's version still sounds like a ridiculous myth to me. Anyone else?

  It's original I though he just copied and paisted the first post on this threadWOW! I didn't notice a bit of diffrence between the two.