Christianity promotes a helpless victim mentality...

by logansrun 151 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  seven006

  Craigy boy,

  You are starting to sound more like me everyday. It cracks me up to read things like you posted on this thread and remember back to when we first started to talk a year and a half ago. You've come a long way tall one.

  Religion in general is nothing more than a persons substitute for mommy and daddy. Hold me, save me, guide me, protect me, discipline me, tell me I'm a good person and you approve of me. Religion is a mental gyroscope that people use to try and keep themselves in balance. Just as a non religious person reaches inside themselves for personal strength to help get through life's obstacles a religious person does the same but replaces their own conscience and inner strength with that of a perceived god.

  They are taught to feel their own personal ability to figure out life is useless so they have to replace what they do or think on their own with some invisible entity. In actuality it is their own self, helping themselves but since they are taught that doing that is arrogant or egotistical they have to give the credit to some god. If there is a god don't you think he has more important things to do like keeping the universe in check and watching stars being born and making sure the sun doesn't flicker out? Take a look at one of the incredible photos of the millions of galaxies taken by the Hubbell telescope and tell me that keeping that all in harmony is a lot more important job for god than helping you pass your drivers test.

  For christians or a member of any religion to think god is personally taking care of them on a day to day basis when he has so much to watch over is, to me, the optima of arrogance and self importance. Who the hell are you to be so important to a god? Take a look at a nebula and tell me if you are more important in the whole scheme of the universe to think god is constantly watching your back. Christians think they are so important. It cracks me up.

  What ever floats your boat. My feeling on religion no matter which flavor of god you choose is fine. What ever wakes you up in the morning and puts a smile on your face, so be it. If you have the self confidence to realize you are the master of your own life than more power to you.

  As far as christians themselves go, someone else in this thread quoted from Nietzsche and I want to throw in my favorite quote from the man.

  " The christian resolve to see the world as ugly and evil has made the world ugly and evil." It's all in your mind folks. What is, is, what will happen, will happen, no matter how one believes or does not believe.

  Dave
• 

  logansrun

  Gamaliel,

  Interesting comments. You seem to be a very liberal Christian and I do not necessarily have any problem with that. You look at the Bible with non-literal eyes -- seeing the poetic truth instead of the literal falsities. Like I said, I see value in this. Unfortunately fundamentalism is all to strong in this country and on this board. I would have no problem living with Christians such as yourself as opposed to....

  Borgfree,

  I guess by the dictionary definition of victim, you were right when you said:

  Wow. How is one not to feel like a victim because of a sentence of death? Read this statement ten times and see just how silly it it.

  When thinking of victim I usually think of today's usage, like, ...people who stuff themselves daily on McDonalds are victims of a corporation, or, ...someone who smokes cigarettes all of their life despite warnings of their danger are victims of a corporation or some great conspiracy.

  A victim also can be one who is unjustly treated by others, namely, the Judeo-Christian God.

  The rest of your post was also grounded on the supreme assumption that the Bible actually is without error, that Jesus actually was the son of God, etc.

  I am not sure I think the bible is without error, I think the NWT is evidence that there can be errors in translations.

  It goes far, far beyond just some translation errors. There are outright myths in the Bible. Bible scholars for the past three-hundred years have found these more and more. (Actually, even Maimonedes many centuries ago saw the difficulties in attributing the Pentateuch to a single author, namely Moses). I reccommend the following books which helped me see things in a new light:

  "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism" by John Shelby Spong

  "The Origin of Satan" by Elaine Pagels

  "Honest To God" by John A.T. Robinson

  "Steve Allen on The Bible, Religion and Morality" by Steve Allen

  "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman

  "The View From Nebo -- How Archaeology is Rewriting the Bible and Reshaping the Middle East" by Amy Dockser Marcus

  I cannot see how anyone with any sense of intellectual (and moral!) honesty could still believe in a literal Bible or the God of Christianity as portrayed by conservative Evangelicals.

  Really -- my God, man! -- there is so much you are missing.

  I am not sure what you mean by that. If you mean I am missing information, you are right. There are millions of books on every subject. There are at least thousands of books, both pro and anti Christian. I will never read them all in my lifetime, I will always be missing something.

  See above titles.

  If you mean I am missing something in life, then you are wrong. I think there is no better life possible than Christian life, I mean the Christian life as outlined in the bible, not in some churches.

  Christian life has made me a better person. Certainly a better person than I was as a Jehovah's Witness.

  I know it is an old question, but I think it is a valid one; would you rather live in a world of true bible Christians or in a world of non-Christians?

  Actually, if I had to choose a global religion for all mankind I would choose Buddhism. A world of atheist/agnostic secular humanists would be a far better world than one of fundy Christians.

  It is not possible to give a good analogy for this work of God, but I will use a very poor one, just to illustrate. Suppose you were a judge and your child came before you charged with murder. You love your child with all your heart and cannot stand the thought of sending your child to be executed for the crime, so, you yourself, pay the penalty so your child can live, especially if your child is genuinely sorry for the crime and promises to spend the rest of his/her life living properly.

  I think your analogy is fine. It is the doctrine itself which is poor. Think about it -- who is the one who accuses the child of murder and will punish him/her for it? The parent. You say the parent doesn't want the child to die -- wouldn't the simplest solution be to not judge/condemn in the first place? What parent -- even a bad one -- would put their child through this.

  The Ransom arrangement is also a very sordid "solution" since it only benefits the minority of people who put faith in Jesus (whatever that means). It is NOT a "free gift" as is so commonly said. Really, the entire thing is so utterly preposterous that any critical thinking on the matter will obliterate this notion. Think about it. Ask questions. What would YOU do if you were God.

  I know that is a poor example but I think you get my point, what parent would not give their life to save the life of their child?

  Again, what parent would kill their child -- for anything?

  I don't expect to change you, KGB, Yerusalyim or any of the other Christians on this forum. Change will only come to those who are courageous to challenge their beliefs and look objectively at all sides of the issue. Perhaps there are those who are just not ready to do this, just as there are JWs who are not ready to examine their religion. All the same, I think this thread will produce some benefit.

  Bradley
• 

  borgfree

  Logansrun,

  By your comments I understand you to say that the world would be a better place without me and people like me, you could be right, but I will wait for the decision of the Greater Judge.

  A victim also can be one who is unjustly treated by others, namely, the Judeo-Christian God.

  If that God exists, and I believe He does, He makes the laws, rules and standards. We can argue with His rules all we want but it is totally useless. Argue with the law of gravity, see how far that will get you.

  I do not expect to have the answers to all of the why's of everything God does, you would have to be God to do that.

  Humans were given the rules to live by (in the case of Adam and Eve, only one rule) they chose to disobey those rules, we cannot expect the Creator of the universe, about whom seven006 said above:

  If there is a god don't you think he has more important things to do like keeping the universe in check and watching stars being born and making sure the sun doesn't flicker out? Take a look at one of the incredible photos of the millions of galaxies taken by the Hubbell telescope and tell me that keeping that all in harmony is a lot more important job for god than helping you pass your drivers test.

  to change laws to fit our every need or excuse. However, because of His love for us He found a way to remove the penalties from us so that we would have life, even though we had earned death.

  There are outright myths in the Bible.

  I think that is not a provable statement. If the God of the bible exists, He can do anything/everything, there are no limits to His abilities. If He chose to cover the entire earth with water, He could surely do it, whether that fits into our particular realm of possibilities or not.

  Bible scholars for the past three-hundred years have found these more and more.

  Not a surprise, scholars have a way of questioning everything and sometimes changing their minds.

  Maimonedes many centuries ago saw the difficulties in attributing the Pentateuch to a single author, namely Moses).

  I read a book recently discussing that very thing. I think it is possible the Pentateuch was written by several people. I do not think that contradicts the bible.

  I reccommend the following books which helped me see things in a new light:

  I am in the middle of three recommended books right now, but I will keep your list and get to them asap.

  I cannot see how anyone with any sense of intellectual (and moral!) honesty could still believe in a literal Bible or the God of Christianity as portrayed by conservative Evangelicals.

  There are people of every intellectual background who believe the bible and the bible God. My belief is based on my training as a child, my reading of the bible, my observations of the awesome, complex life on earth and in the universe, my personal experiences, and faith.

  I will need to end here as I have work that must be done. I will try to get back to your other comments later.

  Borgfree
• 

  Panda

  "Religion is the opium of the masses." Mao This was a very derogatory remark concidering that the Chinese had fought the Opium Wars against the western nations and lost. This allowed the Christian west to continue to sell opium to the Chinese. Purposely addicting them. Anyone who could get the m$$$ together smoked the goopy stuff. So Mao was blasting any form of SLAVERY to the west.

  I find this quote from Mark Twain appropriate to this thread,

  "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
• 

  LittleToe

  Bradley:

  Christianity, in it's truest, fundamentalist form, promotes an unhealthy and non-productive victim mentality.

  Are we talking about "Christianity" in it's truest sense, or "Fundemental Christianity", in it's truest sense?

  Unless my eye's have somehow missed it, why has noone addressed Brummie's excellent points?

  (gonna watch this one from the sidelines for a while)
  ~munches popcorn~
• 

  tinkerbell82

  "Religion is the opium of the masses." Mao

  actually i believe that quote should be attributed to marx, though its been used by many
• 

  AlanF

  Some comments on the "ransom sacrifice" doctrine:

  I realize that various Christians have various ideas on this, but I'll stick with the impression I've gotten from the majority.

  Borgfree said to Logansrun:

  :: The "Ransom Sacrifice" is one of the most perverse, incoherant and twisted religious ideas humankind has ever thought of.

  : I disagree. It is not possible to give a good analogy for this work of God, but I will use a very poor one, just to illustrate. Suppose you were a judge and your child came before you charged with murder. You love your child with all your heart and cannot stand the thought of sending your child to be executed for the crime, so, you yourself, pay the penalty so your child can live, especially if your child is genuinely sorry for the crime and promises to spend the rest of his/her life living properly.

  : I know that is a poor example but I think you get my point, what parent would not give their life to save the life of their child?

  I think it's a pretty good analogy but is as full of perverse notions as is the real deal.

  Think of another analogy: Suppose you have two boys, Billy and Johnny. You tell them, "Don't touch those matches over there or I'll spank you." Billy plays with the matches and you're about to spank him, when Johnny says, "Don't spank him, Dad! Spank me instead!" You spank Johnny instead. Questions: Have you accomplished anything good by spanking someone other than the 'perpetrator'? Has justice been served? Is the purpose of justice simply to have someone -- anyone -- pay a penalty for a bad action?

  Now consider a slightly different analogy: Billy played with the matches, and you can't bear to spank him, so you spank yourself. How stupid is that? Does it accomplish anything besides making you look stupid? Does it serve justice in any way? Of course not!

  The ransom sacrifice doctrine amounts to a simple notion: To satisfy God's notion of justice, bad things must come in pairs. I.e., a bad action by someone must be balanced by punishment to someone -- anyone.

  In the case of the ransom sacrifice doctrine, the situation is even worse, justice-wise, than in your simple analogy. Who made mankind to be inherently sinful, namely, inherenty incapable of fully obeying God? God himself did! Therefore, God's punishing mankind in various ways for being what God made mankind to be is stupid, wouldn't you agree? And God's supposedly sending Jesus (whether you interpret this in a trinitarian or non-trinitarian way is taken care of by my above analogies) to be punished for mankind's inherent sin -- which God himself put there to begin with -- accomplishes nothing by way of justice. All it does is satisfy an ancient and rather stupid notion that "bad things must come in pairs".

  Going back to a "Billy" analogy again, a more apt one would be this: You're Billy's father and you put him through a program of intense brainwashing that ensures that no matter what you tell him, he is guaranteed to play with matches. Then you tell him not to play with matches. He does, then you tell him, "Oh you bad boy, Billy! You played with matches. I need to spank you. But I feel sorry for you, so I'm going to spank myself instead. Am I not a wonderful father for treating you so well, Billy?"

  Do you get the point, Borgfree?

  I have yet to find a Christian who can answer the above problems logically. Some find ways to skirt the issues, to be sure, but I'm talking about a logical presentation that answers all of the questions, as well as a number of others that also arise. Good luck if anyone wants to tackle it.

  AlanF
• 

  Utopian Reformist

  Alan:
  
  The answer most fundamentalists will give you is probably the explanation that despite the Genesis account lacking pure logic, it is an issue of that magic word "faith".
  
  They will say that like the bible says, humans trap themselves in human wisdom and human philosophy, therefore the simplicity of God's plan cannot be grasped because they keep blinding themselves searching for impossible answers. Because it requires faith to accept the account, the book, the authors and the deity, you and I are not able to grasp the beauty, the magnificance, the sheer love of God's ransom provision as outlined in Genesis.
  
  How sad for us. Good thing I love the heat!
• 

  Brummie

  AlanF, good post. Christians do not view a substitutionary role as being a bad thing and neither does anyone else. For instance, if someone is drowning and you dive in and save their life and consequently lose your own life in the process you will be loved by many. You have become a substitute and there is no greater love than that of one who would lay his life down for someone else.

  In the Christian worldview "sin" is a seperation from God, without God man is drowning, Jesus came as a saviour and became a substitute for the drowning ones (he restored their relationship with God), consequently he lost his life, he knew this would be the outcome but it didnt prevent him from coming and laying down his life.

  Thats the Christian worldview.

  While I am no Christian scholar and neither am I religious, I think this thread, from the very outset, failed to draw a distinction between Christianity and churchianity.

  Brummie
• 

  DanTheMan

  therefore the simplicity of God's plan cannot be grasped because they keep blinding themselves searching for impossible answers.

  Herein lies the intoxicating appeal of literalist Christianity. We humans are rational creatures. We want answers. We want life to make sense, but ultimately it doesn't. Life is what it is. The notions that we are alone in an indifferent universe and that this life is all there is, are frightening indeed. I am still very much in the process of accepting these (possible) facts (Who knows, maybe there is an afterlife). I want the universe to be friendly, I want it to care about me. I want to believe that there is some omnipotent sky-dad watching out for me. But that doesn't seem to be the case. And I often feel victimized by that, that this is all unfair somehow.

  I like what the character Mersealt said in Camus' The Stranger:

  "I looked up at the mass of signs and stars in the night sky and laid myself open for the first time to the benign indifference of the world."

  The thing that I agonize over the most, is - if you reject the idea of God, what is the basis for morality? I'm not saying that atheists are immoral, and believers certainly have a very tainted history, but to me adopting a purely secular, temporal outlook seems somehow lacking. But, that goes back to the existential idea that life really does have no meaning or purpose.

  Dan, endlessly-agonizing-over-the-big-questions-in-his-own-uneducated-and-pseudo-intellectual-way class