It was a kumquat, therefore I cannot take you and your beliefs seriously until you can get your facts straight.
My Apologies to Christians.
by AK - Jeff 119 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
AK - Jeff
You know Tammy, this was just TIC.
But on a serious note: If any Christian, including you, would ever be willing to honestly discuss your premises and your Holy Book fairly. OK. Bring it on. I won't mock a bit. But so far, no takers.
Oh, I've encountered plenty of C's willing to pretend debate, hide behind double talk or circular reason. I have found a few willing to switch quickly from fundamental to near-unitarian from sentence to sentence. I have seen those willing to draw red-herrings, build straw men, indulge in false dilemma. But I have never met one willing to stand up and defend - with logical, coherent, on topic discussion - their beliefs.
If you want to do that - tell me the time and place. We can debate the flood, Jesus, the Bible, Noah, Jonah, your choice. I will not mock or try to humiliate anyone who makes honest effort to defend with logic what they believe. I believed it too. For many, many, decades. I read the Bible every year. I prayed until I turned red. I tried to convert others to my brand of Christianity until I literally had blisters on my feet. I turned down jobs, careers, education in favor of the 'Lord' and his 'will' as I understood it. I was a believer! I know the drill. I understand the zeal you display.
But, like you, when it got down to real defense of what I believed, it came down to relatively simple de-construction of the core of Christianity within months. It could not stand. It was sand. It was defenseless against reason and logic.
I have only one rule, and I have absolutely never seen a Christian stick to this rule: Stay on topic, until that topic has been fully examined. No jumping topic. No moving to and fro and substituting emotion for real discussion.
Bishop to Queen, King check.
Jeff
-
sabastious
Jeff, as you know, Christianity is an emotional religion. Discussing the logic and reason of emotion is rather futile.
-Sab
-
The_Present_Truth
Always enjoy your posts AK-Jeff. These days I tend to share your sentiments.
The_Present_Truth
-
mouthy
you need to get laid more LOL!!! If you ask me ( & ya didnt) I think Jeff DID get laid...
By that sneaky old demon (lack of faith.....Darling Jeff I love ya....Keep on keeping on.I still love Jesus !!!!! but instead of getting Laid He helps me STAND UP!!!! Great feeling
Why do we have to discuss the book YOU tell me sweetheart,who created the flowers, birds,bees,moon,stars,
I wont tlak about the book BUT YOu tell me WHO....DID NO ONE CREATE them????? -
tec
Jeff - You don't want to know how long it took me to figure out what TIC stood for. So yes, I understood that... sort of.
As for discussing my faith, I am willing to discuss whatever you like - and I'll do my best to follow your rule, and correct myself if I think I'm not and you point it out. I don't really care about debating though, and I certainly am not trying to convert anyone to my brand of Christianity. I don't have a brand of Christianity. I have spent time studying the bible, over and over again, but I know that I could do that for a lifetime and be no closer to the truth or the love of Christ than if I had never read it to begin with. I don't believe the bible is without error. I don't believe it is all scripture. I don't even believe it is the Word of God. I also don't believe that Christianity, as a religion in all its many denominations is without error and without its share of atrocity.
As for the core of Christianity, that for me is Christ - and his core teachings are faith, love, mercy and forgiveness. Everything else -doctrines, rules, creeds, organizations - gets messed up and twisted around.
So, since love is a core part of my belief - THE core part next to faith - we might not have anything to discuss, as that is an emotion. But if there is something in particular you would like to discuss, then I am willing.
Tammy
-
Gregor
This clarifies all things. This helps you to make sense of the entire Christian premise. It is the anti-typical event that was symbolized by the thousands of animal blood sacrifices referred to in the Old Testament. Too bad the poor animals were dead forever instead of just three days, but, eh, it all comes out when washed in the blood of the lamb.
Final score: Emotion and superstition - 1
common sense -0
Praise the Lord!
-
AK - Jeff
I don't believe the bible is without error. I don't believe it is all scripture. I don't even believe it is the Word of God. I also don't believe that Christianity, as a religion in all its many denominations is without error and without its share of atrocity.
Tammy - Thank you for your very honest statement in that.
I agree with all those statements. We are in agreement. What I wonder then, is this:
If the Bible isn't inspired of god and infallible, not god's word, then on what basis can one depend on the idea of Jesus as savior? Without that which passes as 'Holy' writ, the Bible, then Jesus, if he ever lived at all, is but a man. If the ideology of Christianity is stripped of it's 'manual' for salvation, then how could one put faith in those ideas?
You see, this is what happened to me. I found myself reasoning. I found myself looking upon what appears to many logical minds [except those influenced by it for a lifetime and surrounded by a supporting culture] to be fictitious legend, perhaps influenced by a real Jesus, but not by a divine one.
When I was a school aged child, we studied Greek and Roman mythology [well not deeply, but on the surface]. Having been reared in Christian society, I had absolutely no problem understanding that what I was reading was not real. Not for one millisecond did I imagine that Zeus or Hermes or Oranos were based in factual supernatural worlds, either current or past. None of my teachers ever insisted that it was true, that we should believe it. It was presented as fictional.
At the same time, many or most of us in those classrooms had no problem 'believing' those stories about Adam and Eve and Jesus. While understanding that the 'silly' stories we were hearing about the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses were clearly fiction, we were at the same time accepting that the 'silly' Christian stories were not only true, but the viable means to eternal blessing to those who accepted them and lived in 'faith'.
The contradiction there, the cognitive failure to recognize the similar nature of the Biblical mythology was prompted by the culture in which we lived. Had we been ancient Greek children, sitting at the feet of our teachers in Athens, there would have been 180* vector. Had the 'Christian' stories been circulating among us, we would have laughed at them, while our cognitive dissonance would have protected our revered Greek Gods and Goddesses. That is all we would have heard about all our lives. They wouldn't be 'silly stories' to us.
You see, it is all about culture. All about timing. All about what is currently and locally considered 'divine' 'inspired' 'holy'.
If you and I were born in Japan, in all likelihood we would be Shinto or Buddhist worshipers. Our 'truth' would be so vastly removed from Christianity that we would give virtually no attention to Christian ideas, much as I imagine that until this moment, and my bringing it up, you have not considered Shinto or Buddhism as religion worthy of much thought. Certainly not as 'the truth'.
In a thousand years - man's social evolution may in fact bring us to a point where the Christian stories will be told with laughing and chuckles among school children who have been culturally imprinted by society of that future time. Perhaps that society will have become predominately atheistic, or perhaps new religious notions would have arisen and taken the place of Christianity. Perhaps Hindi or Muslim society will dominate, and the children will think any religion outside of that is 'silly' nonsensical'. Much as we laughed at Greek myths, so our great grandchildren to the hundredth exponent may laugh that anyone could have actually believed that Christianity was 'serious'.
Tammy - what are your thoughts about what I have stated here? I would value your expressions.
Jeff
-
compound complex
Beautifully expressed, Tammy.
As my head has always been in the clouds, Jeffrey, I have this problem applying logic and critical thinking in many matters, particularly regarding religion and belief in God (which I still hold to). I figure I was never wired to think. My people are emotional non-thinkers [sort of].
While the quotation below deals with Sergei Rachmaninoff's not keeping up with the music of his era, the sentiments declared apply to my inability mentally, and, consequently, verbally, to defend a lot of things so many here on the board appear peculiarly adept at:
"I cannot cast out the old way of writing and I cannot acquire the new. I have made intensive efforts to feel the musical manner of today, but it will not come to me."
Like you, I once defended my faith [by the Society's outline, of course]. Now ... It's all a big ? mark.
CoCo
-
tec
Jeff - thank you for waiting.
I do not dismiss the bible in entirety, and I would just like to comment on this first: If the Bible isn't inspired of god and infallible, not god's word. Depending on what you think inspired of means, writings can be inspired of God, but not infallible. It can mean that God spoke through the writer (prophet) ... but not necessarily every writer whose letter or message is in the bible is a prophet, and definitely not the scribes who wrote/rewrote those words. If, however, you apply inspired to the bible in entirety as one work written by God and as THE word of god, then no. Even the bible doesn't make that claim about itself. Men do.
Now the writings about Jesus are the testimonies and witness accounts according to the people who wrote them. I can read them to get a feel for this person, called Christ and/or Jesus. I can come to know of him through what people told me about him, and through what was written about him. But I did not come to know him in this manner. I can only know him through the spirit, and perhaps the fruits of the spirit.
much as I imagine that until this moment, and my bringing it up, you have not considered Shinto or Buddhism as religion worthy of much thought. Certainly not as 'the truth'.
On the contrary. While I have not delved into deep study on the eastern religions, I have taken the time to learn what it is on the surface of Buddhism. I have, in fact, thought many times that they show the same peace and beliefs (without an actual God) that I find in Christ. Buddhism is very appealing, from what I know of it, because of the peace in spirit that it offers. The love of others that it offers. The 'do no harm' that it offers.
Yet these are the same 'fruits of the spirit' that I find in Christ. That I learned from Christ. And I literally cannot deny Him, whom I love and who I learned how to love from.
I can tell you that I feel more kinship with a group of pacifist monks, unwilling to harm others and willing to die if they must to maintain their peace, than I feel for a 'Christian' who goes to make war in Christ's name - or cause pain in His name, or persecute in His name. If there was an Islam man/woman who showed humility and love and mercy in their lives, who would keep peace, even at their own detriment, then I would feel more kinship with that person than I would with someone from, say, the Westboro baptists. (though in truth, I feel sorrow for the children being raised to believe such hate, and live under such fear) Islamists do, however, accept and respect Christ as a prophet.
Love, mercy, forgiveness... those are some of the fruits of the spirit and they are not limited to culture or time or trends, etc. I would wager that not every japanese person who worships Buddha (though I think worship is the wrong word), shows the fruits of the spirit, just as not every muslim does, or every western person does with the Christian faith.
According to what is written and passed on, Jesus taught these things. Jesus lived these things. Those who witnessed him taught and lived these things - even the writings we do have about Jesus don't say go to war, start stringing up all the homosexuals, burn the witches and the heretics, etc, etc. They say love your neighbor and your enemy. Do good to both. Show mercy over sacrifice. Turn the other cheek. But men perverted those writings and used them to gain power in this world - maybe maliciously, maybe out of ignorance.
So if people made him up, or exaggerated his importance beyond a merely good man... to what end did they do so? To promote peace? To teach us to show love and mercy? And if those were their goals... then where is the lie in them or the witness accounts? As for the OT, Christ is the reflection of God - not old testament writings. If I keep the love of Christ in mind and spirit, it becomes easier to understand what may or may not be accurate in the OT. What may be 'of God' and what may be 'of men'.
So if someone truly knows or understands Christ and what He taught/lived, then I don't think that even in a thousand years, they would be laughing at His stories. Perhaps just what we made of those stories. (or maybe they'll even be chuckling over that little atheist uprising that went on for a while :) )
I realize I may have jumped around a bit. I'll be more than happy to clear some things up and be more to the point if need be.
And thank you, Jeff, for keeping your word.
Tammy
