The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom 303 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Jonathan Drake

  @ simon

  yea it happened a while back, and I've not read they reopened anywhere:

  http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2011/12/29/illinois-catholic-charities-close-rather-than-allow-same-sex-couples-adopt-children/Km9RBLkpKzABNLJbUGhvJM/story.html
  

  The way I see them as connected is because the argument is about "traditional" marriage. The opponents of gay rights whom I've heard speak all used that same word. And where are they getting this definition of tradition marriage? Not all of them say it's the bible, some do, but it surely must be. On the Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore last week there was a panel discussing the issue and all four agreed that it boils down to religion trying to stand in the way. Now I should say, this does not mean all religious people feel that way, but the major organizations themselves certainly aren't supporting it. 

  Here is the nightly show panel discussion:

  http://sallykohn.com/2015/02/nightly-show-larry-wilmore-clips-gay-marriage-discussion/
  
• 

  looter

  Jon Drake, I honestly believe with all the scientific advances, new knowledge, and just an overall better understanding of humanity will help people to eventually wake up from religion in its entirety. We should not have to rid religion by force because I think in the coming centuries people will just stop believing in religion as it slowly becomes unpopular eventually. One example of this is the Spontaneous Generation, an old belief that faded once scientist found out about atoms, elements, protons, and other discoveries. Of course, religion is not just a belief but a system designed to fool people and control them by playing with their emotions and gullibility so it will be lengthy. But I truly believe that somewhere down the line, centuries from now, religion will prove to be highly unsuccessful. Most children today are learning the truth early on because of technology and that will surely affect the coming generations. Since the decline of religion is an ongoing phenomenon, this can become true someday. Instead of trying to vigorously stop religion, we should let it eliminate itself
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  @looter

  i suppose that does make sense. But so many lives will be ruined by them until that point. I guess that idea is something I really hate ya know? Like, how many children will never reach their full potential because of the Watchtower before it's gone? How many children will grow up in poverty because of the churches dogma of NFP?

  i hate thinking about it.
• 

  Simon

  yea it happened a while back, and I've not read they reopened anywhere

  So that is an example of the government protecting people's rights by refusing to give funds or tax breaks to groups that discriminate. If a religion decides it would rather close down it's services then that is it's choice. Religions backs off and becomes less relevant - no need for any bans that would only serve to strengthen them by feeding the persecution complex.

  how many children will never reach their full potential because of the Watchtower before it's gone

  It will never be gone. There will always be stupid people, dumb parents and idiotic ideas - something else would replace it. What we can do is reduce it's impact by making certain things mandatory for all children e.g. education - get rid of "faith schools" (which is an oxymoron) and home schooling.

  It's already happening - religion is retreating and it's grasp of society is nowhere near what it was half a century ago. Big changes take time and generations but it's happening.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  It will never be gone. There will always be stupid people, dumb parents and idiotic ideas - something else would replace it. What we can do is reduce it's impact by making certain things mandatory for all children e.g. education - get rid of "faith schools" (which is an oxymoron) and home schooling.
  

  Well this would be a nice compromise to forceful outlawing of religion, I must say. This topic, religion, is one I am extremely biased on. I feel robbed and having only just got out of the JWs that feeling of robbery is probably just still fresh, maybe as time goes on ill be less hostile toward it and be able to think of more peaceful solutions like you and looter put forward. 

  Still, it'd be nice to see them convicted for all the harms they've done to all the people they've affected around the world. And not just them, but other religions too. I think that's where my feelings on it come from, the fact that I realize you and looter are right, I'll never see justice for these harms but I want to - I don't want revenge, not saying that. violence isn't the answer, but I'd like to see something... Know what I mean?
• 

  Viviane

  Show me where I said other Christians are fake Christians? I said they don't listen to their own book, not that they were insincere. 

  Well, you're one, for instance. You are denying that you have a religion yet are very much a Christian when you get down to it and are telling other Christians have it wrong. If they claim to be Christian but have it wrong, they are fake. I never made ANY claim about their sincerity or claimed that you did. You are trying to claim that 1) you aren't religious, you just believe in Jesus, the resurrection, heaven and punishment 2) other Christians have it wrong and don't even understand their own book but are totally legit and not fake at all 3) that somehow YOUR distinctions are different that when other Christians do it. 

  Hypocrite.

  As is typical of most Christians, you have a problem with reality. 

  Youre still ill putting words in my mouth. I can't even begin to explain how much I dislike you. Please stop slandering me and concocting your nonsense.

  So... 1)I really wish more people (like you) knew what slander means and 2) I really don't care what you opinion of me is.
• 

  Viviane

  this is a further example of what I said above. And I mean this as friendly as possible, but you've all done far moreinterpreting in this thread than I have because it is continuing to happen with my words which, 'seem' to  indicate to you what you want them to so you can lambast me. But I never said it. I never said or even thought abou claiming Christians of any enoki action are fake, or that I am the authority on how they should think and feel. Regarding the latter, I've emphasized the opposite at least three times. 

  OK. So, actually think about what you have claimed. 

  1) You reject religion BUT believe in a holy book, Jesus as the Messiah, heaven, God, punishment for getting it wrong, and have decided who has it wrong and right, etc. That's the very definition of Christian, that's how they have behaved from the very beginning. That's how Muslims act and have from the beginning. Hindu's, etc. In what sense are you NOT Christian and NOT religious?

  2) If you are comparing books and looking at scripture to determine what parts are right, which are wrong and then determining which Christians have it right, you are interpreting. Full stop, end of story. That is exactly what you are doing BUT exactly what you are claiming NOT to do. 

  3) Real vs Fake. You claim other Christians have it wrong. OK. If someone doesn't understand the rules of the road, can they claim to be a driver? If they don't understand how to start a car can they claim to be driving? Loving cars doesn't make that person a driver. Similarly, you are claiming they have it wrong but surely aren't calling them fake because you think they are sincere in their beliefs. Since when does sincerity of belief have anything to do with it? I can believe all day that I live on top of a giant gold mine. That in no way makes the gold mine real. 

  4) Authority. You claim none yet still think you can decide which beliefs are correct and which aren't. If you've no authority, then no, you can't make any claims about that which is right and wrong. If you do, you are claiming some measure of authority to do so.

  I'm not trying to beat you up, but you seem to want to do all of these things, make all of these claims but then deny that you are actually doing any of this. 
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Well, you're one, for instance.

  So first you try to defame me by putting words in my mouth that I said all Christians are fake, then when I prove this incorrect you say I'm a fske Christian. If it would be wrong for me to call someone fake then it's certainly wrong for you to...

  Hypocrite

  Again.

  actually think about what you've claimed.

  you believe in... Punishment for getting it wrong, and have decided who has it wrong and right...

  Again you are saying I said something I never said trying to defame me (this is the definition of slander, feel free to look it up- it's synonymous with "Malign", you are Maligning my words). 

  What I have said is that the majority don't follow what their own book says. I never said they are wrong and I am right. I quoted a verse, that is all. And as far as the punishment thing goes, I've actually said the complete opposite of what you here say I did.

  JD: if a person denies this message, Christians teach they will die. I disagree, this is not what it says. It says the judge is Christ, and that all those who do good and are righteous will be saved...

  ...I have many friends who are genuinely good people who feel similarly to both yourself and cofty, and of these friends I would say if God could judge them unrighteous then we are all royally screwed. 

  Completed opposite of what you're claiming I said. I,min fact, do not believe in blanket punishment of any who don't agree with me or some denomination - I feel the opposite. So again:

  VIC: Would you mind NOT telling other people what they think and why? They (we) are perfectly capable of explaining it ourselves. 
  

  Hypocrite. Feel free to look that word up while your at it too. also in case you failed to notice, the thread has pretty much ended. Yet again, you are looking for an arguement like I've pointed out is your pattern of behavior. Once again, you are posting instagatory comments that misquote, misrepresent, and SLANDER (defame me with things I never said, again, look it up) me. You're an argumentative presence here and eventually you'll do it to the wrong person I hope, so i dont have to deal with the circular debate of me stating reality and you trying as hard as possible to reach a different conclusion and keep fighting.
• 

  Simon

  It's easy to claim most Christians are "fake" because they fail to follow the Christ-story examples of how to behave. Turn the other cheek, don't judge others etc...

  Please stop with the "slander" claims. It is not slander to point out what someone has said.

  I think when people leave a religion there is often a tendency to imagine that "just that religion" was wrong, but I still believe the bible. The bible is the last domino to fall - eventually you realize that religion was just one variation of interpretation among many others. The real flaw is with the whole idea.

  The reason I think many find this difficult is that it switches things from "they fooled me into believing their crap" to "I was a fool for believing that crap".

  It's easier to blame others but we get more peace when we accept our role in it all and recognize the real truth about religion.
• 

  Simon

  JD: We're not going to play "show me where I said that" because it's pointless:

  Some people think that is what you said. Saying you didn't isn't going to convince them.

  Likewise, them showing you where they think you did say it isn't going to convince you.

  Better to simply clarify what you mean rather than demand examples of where they think you said something. If you believe what you said wasn't clear then say it a different way. If you think someone is deliberately misinterpreting then you have nothing to worry about.