Christianity is barking mad!

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Megan

Adam, I think Einstein was more of a Deist, don't you think?

Do you really think Radical want to take people's freedom away? That would indeed be radical!

I'm betting that he just needs to vent.

What do you say, Radical?

Well he certainly did not believe in a personal god.

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive." - Albert Einstein

[TechnoGuyRob]

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

I take every bit of the bible literally. It may seem that one does not have a choice with God, but the over all theme of the Good Book is your choice. Your choice no matter what story is to choose God or choose death. Plain and simple. If a man is afraid to understand the bible without doubt, then he will never understand. But if a man realeases his doubt, then he will understand the bible. A belief is something you find true no matter what evidence is brought against it. All evidence against the bible has no rock beneath it.

You take every bit of the Bible literally? As in, if it presented you with a claimed historical fact (e.g., a genealogy), you would assume it was presenting you with actual past events? Then, I suppose Joseph had two fathers, who reproduced together by God's divine grace? After all, Matthew's genealogy differs in every single name/ancestor from Luke's genealogy, as well as (significantly) in the number of ancestors (at least, up until they get to David--curiously, the genealogies agree perfectly after David; in other unrelated news, the Old Testament had a genealogy of David, a book both of the authors had access to). So, I guess since the Bible is literal, Joseph had two fathers (one of whom bore Joseph by God's magnificent grace--and you thought you were special, Mary) whose ancestries happened to collide back upon a common predecessor, David. Or, perhaps God made a boo boo and wasn't paying attention to guiding Matthew and Luke's hands when they were writing that down. Nah. Of course not. It's the Bible. It must be literal. Thank you for gay sex, Bible.

EDIT: It bemuses and saddens me people like you can continue to "believe" this bullcrap, going so far as to refuse any empirical evidence whatsoever in favor of some Greek and Hebrew words written centuries ago (how can you be sure they were? Carbon dating? Oh, wait, that's empirical...). What's even more perplexing, however, is that people point out the blatant inherent contradictions found in this text (such as the one described) without even referring to any of the empirical evidence you so dearly fear, and yet you still dismiss it without a single blemish on your conscience (sometimes claiming the Bible is literal, while at other times it has to be interpreted; but wait! Paul said in the Bible that "the scriptures" (the Bible) are not to be interpreted, but are completely absolute and literal). If you wish, you can practice doublethink all you want, but if some theistic God did exist, adoption of such complete abolishment of rationality would not be favored by a Jesus, but rather, by a Satan. Blind adoption of a concept--what we term "faith"--by young apes and hominids (including human children) is indeed beneficial to survival (e.g., parents might not know why the rapidly moving molecules in fire burn a hand, but if their child did not accept this "belief" blindly--by faith--it would be more likely to die). However, since many people here like him, to quote Dawkins, "children are native teleologists, and many never grow out of it." Grow up.

EDIT2:

Originally Posted by Joshiepoo3000

To not recognize absurdity IS crazy.

I was going to say something, but then I decided to look up a random word in the dictionary. Ooh, what's this one mean? "Irony."

EDIT3:

Sorry for sounding upset, aggressive, or jeering. I was. Irrationality is my biggest antagonist. I know this post very likely did not, and will not convince anybody of anything, or inform people of much (except for maybe yet another Biblical discrepancy). It inadvertently became sarcastic comic relief (a la H. L. Mencken, dare I say?) for myself and others who find faith ridiculous. So to you pyrrhonists out there, I hope I catalyzed a good chuckle. ;-)

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Adam

Christians are not evil, ergo, Christianity is not evil.

Americans are not evil, ergo, capital punishment is not evil. (Your logic is faulty)

Religion is a framework of beliefs, not its followers.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Radical

Americans are not evil, ergo, capital punishment is not evil. (Your logic is faulty)

If you were to use the train of logic that I used against me, you would have said that "Americans are not evil, ergo, America is not evil." Some Americans are evil, as are some aspects of American law, but that does not mean that every American is a murderer. As it goes, your comment only shows your own extremism, not a fault in anybody's logic. A religion is no more a framework of archaic beliefs than a nation is its laws; both are dependent on people following those laws/beliefs, and are made up of those very same people, complete with their interpretations. Laws/schripture are nothing more than ink on paper until someone applies them.

I am curious about the question that Megan posed... Do you truly want to take away people's freedom, or were you simply saying those things to take an extreme view?

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Adam

If you were to use the train of logic that I used against me, you would have said that "Americans are not evil, ergo, America is not evil." Some Americans are evil, as are some aspects of American law, but that does not mean that every American is a murderer. As it goes, your comment only shows your own extremism, not a fault in anybody's logic. A religion is no more a framework of archaic beliefs than a nation is its laws; both are dependent on people following those laws/beliefs, and are made up of those very same people, complete with their interpretations. Laws/schripture are nothing more than ink on paper until someone applies them.

I am curious about the question that Megan posed... Do you truly want to take away people's freedom, or were you simply saying those things to take an extreme view?

Capital punishment is a belief Americans espouse (although a lot don't), and Christianity is a belief (or set of beliefs) that Christians espouse. Perhaps I should have said American law in general? Anyway, as to your question - I do believe in freedom of religion. But the point of this thread was to make people realise how absurd (when properly examined) Christianity really is.

[Adam]

Who were you trying to convince that Christianity is absurd? Those who don't follow it will agree with you, and those who do follow it will not agree with you. That is one of the hard truths about dealing with religion.

While I agree with many of your points, I do not agree with your methods. If your goal was to awaken people to absurdities in religion, then you were practicing futility, as religious people would see your point as being either satanically inspired, or as a direct attack against their beliefs.

The most effective way of telling people that they are wrong is to avoid telling them that they are wrong. Tell them what is right instead (or rather, what you believe to be right). If they decide to believe you, then unless they have the mental capacity/insanity enough to hold two conflicting beliefs as Steve Pavlina has, then the old belief will disappear. Do not force people, or they will only fight against you, no matter how good your intentions are. Also, an ounce of humility goes a very long way. Setting yourself up as an expert only invites people to prove you wrong (despite what my farcical blog post claims).

And most important, please always be tolerant. Just because someone is intolerant of you is not an excuse to be intolerant of them.

I do have to say that this was a fun debate. I really enjoyed it, and learned a lot from it. Thank you, Radical. Despite some of your radical arguments, and some of the borderline inappropriate posts by a few people participating in this thread, I think that, overall, this was constructive, even if some people failed to absolutely prove their points (myself included).

[Megan]

I watched them back to back. Monty's great too!

Radical, I, a Christian, freely concede the absurdities of Christianity, when examined from a declarative reading of the text. Yikers!

However you used the phrase "properly examined," which, correct me if I'm wrong, makes it sound like you stand on privileged ground to do that examining.

Sex could be described as an absurd exercise in friction, when examined from a detached point of view by ETs, but perhaps those actually engaging in it would understand it better.

Christianity is not one monolithic thing, any more than the New Age is one definable thing, though people looking in from the outside like to go off on them both as if they were one thing.

The fact that some Christians handle snakes does not reflect on the faith of Thomas Berry. The fact that some New Age people wear tin foil hats does not make all psi research invalid. I could throw in a few Latin names for logical fallacies there, ya know?

Alfred North Whitehead credits Christianity for setting up the conditions in which science eventually flourished.

But, like Adam, I've had my strong feelings about religion too--in my case Christianity (think Lt. Dan shaking his fist at the sky in the storm on the mast of Forest, Forest Gump's shrimp boat), so, you know, I'm pretty tolerant of people needing to get things out.

A few years ago, when I first read Martin Luther's "Dirty Little Book" about the Jews I was enraged and outraged. I got on a forum and just ripped him--said I couldn't consider myself a Christian, etc., etc.

Well, someone got on and boxed my ears pretty good. Said, "Woman, you have no sense of the scope of history!"

Well, I thought about that for a long time, and I finally decided he was right.

So, how's your sense of the scope of history, Radical? Are you standing on privileged ground to write off the religion on which Western Culture is founded, along with all its sages, saints and scholars?

How old did you say you are?

[TechnoGuyRob]

Originally Posted by Megan

How old did you say you are?

Admittedly likely unintended by you, I interpret that as maliciously facetious, but more importantly, indicative of naivety and charlatanry. Is disestablishment of assigning significance to arguably arbitrary temporal variables not conducive to an objective ideational exchange medium? Honestly, what a silly question. As Steve said in his creativity article, why not think of it as a plane of ideas, not a plane of carbon atoms shouting out words?

[Megan]

Radical, it seems you are not a Christian because of your highly developed sense of morals, and I find that quite laudable.

In my understanding, in reading Lawrence Kohlberg, and others, your moral development exceeds those of very literal-minded Fundamentalists.

He posits Pre-conventional, Conventional, and Post-Conventional Moral Development, as you probably already know.

Pre-conventional:

The first level of moral thinking is that generally found at the elementary school level. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best interests.

Conventional:

The second level of moral thinking is that generally found in society, hence the name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty.

Post-conventional:

The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience.

While Kohlberg always believed in the existence of Stage 6 and had some nominees for it, he could never get enough subjects to define it, much less observe their longitudinal movement to it.

KOHLBERG'S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

What I would offer for your consideration is that the religious impulse can move from pre-conventional to post-conventional type thinking. Post-conventional religious thinkers are not as visible or vocal as their more dogmatic counterparts, but they do indeed exist.

Embracing rationality does not necessitate abandoning faith.

[Megan]

Naw, I was just boxing his ears a bit, cuz I'm like, you know...OLD!

[nara]

Originally Posted by Megan

What I would offer for your consideration is that the religious impulse can move from pre-conventional to post-conventional type thinking. Post-conventional religious thinkers are not as visible or vocal as their more dogmatic counterparts, but they do indeed exist.

Question is, how much of the post-conventional religious thinkers beliefs still stem from their religion and how much of their religion did they have to dismiss to arrive at their current beliefs? Shouldn't an ideal belief system lead to a strong majority of post-conventional thinkers? Religions seem to produce very little post-conventional thinkers, while the majority are conventional with another small group of pre-conventional.

Religions have done alot for society and for better or worse they helped bring us to this point in human evolution. Personally I believe religions are outdated beliefs systems that will likely be extinct in approximately 1000 years. With 6 billion people in the world and with the population growing exponentially, our societies will grow far more complex. You'll have billions of people all living in the same existence but with each person having a slightly different way of living it.

The absolute laws and ways of living set by the god/s of religions will gradually make much less sense in a world full of such wide diversity. To survive, religions will break off into different sects where the followers will pick and choose beliefs from the old religion to give their faith more relevancy in the changing world. Eventually, religions will become too diversified and will collapse as they try to keep up with the rapid changes that occur in a society of 12+ billion people.

What we will be left with, is a religion free - understanding, intelligent, and compassionate society that is better able to put themselves in the shoes of others and understand where they come from. A society of people that live more in the moment and respond to new social situations in a more dynamic way instead of relying on beliefs of how they believe things should be. Instead of that suicidal man needing to believe in eternal hell to save his life it will be clear to the man that his self-worth is likely determined by the company he keeps. He understands that by finding a new peer group he will improve his self-worth and his life. The man didn't have to be taught this in school, it is apparent to him because of the society he lives in.

The thing to keep in mind is that religion has served us well but religion does not have the exclusive on morality. It is also not designed to handle the societies of the future in my opinion. These are the reasons I do not believe in religion and why I feel religion needs to go even if it does help some people make it through the day. Because, like I said, when the world's population really starts to balloon, people will either come to a deeper, intellectual, understanding or the world will see unprecedented violence as religious beliefs and old ways of thinking collide.

[tropicality]

I agree wholeheartedly nara. We are being held back by our awareness.

We as humans on our earth do not have a very big awareness when it comes to the entire universe, most people don't even have an adequate awareness of the region they live in, or the field they study in.

If we were to expand our awareness all across the universe, what do we get? That is what I will try to explain here.

When we factor in all of the scientific and spiritual abilities into the equation, we get a very expansive sense of reality.

For example, given that the universe is currently estimated to be 13.7 billion years old, we must realize that we as humans on this earth, are no older than maybe several hundred thousand years. Which is still, only 0.000018% of the life of the universe, we are but a blink in time. Therefore, it is fantasy and lack of awareness to think that we are the only 'living' things out there, we may be one of few species who have a physical body, while many more are a 'spirit' on the astral, but we are simply not the only living species. I realize this will create the question 'well why have they not contacted us yet?'. Well in fact they have, many people contact spirits on the astral, and we have in fact been contacted by physical beings, just not on a global scale (yet), these tend to be individual encounters, however I do not plan to go into the details in this article, perhaps another time. Besides, if you were a super advanced society that had the ability to manipulate your environment at will using your mind, would you care what some barbaric society was doing on the edge of the galaxy on their own little planet? I think not. And we need to realize that.

When we are to realize that we very well may have been 'created' by another entity who has existed for billions of years before us, then what is this 'god' that religeon's worship? Well it is nothing more than a fairy tale creature. Think of how science is leading into the ability to clone living animals and humans, and modify their dna, which can eventually lead to the creation of a new species.

So why do we worship a thoughtform, a 'god', when we are a god ourselves, we are 'creators' of our very existence. Only when we accept that, will we then be able to do what was done to create the human species, we will have the power of the same 'God' that created us, we will be able to manipulate energy at will.

Believing in the view of god in today's religion as being some fairytale creature in the sky who will send us to heaven if we accept him or else torment us for all of eternity if we do not is mere fantasy and is only used to control the populance, be honest, christianity only softens the blow for a slave state mentality. It is basically what we are founded on. (this is kind of an outside comment to this whole post but I find it shocking that people do not realize the reality of what is happening: Have you seen the news lately? The Biometrics card being forced upon the UK [and then later the USA] in 2007-2008 which will lead to the implanted chip, RFID, our every move, every purchase, every WORD will be tracked by those in power, and hey, guess what, they won't be able to have enough people watching us, they will use AI, we will soon be fearing that if we say the wrong words or speak out against the government, we will likely be visited overnight by some 'agents', but that is not what I want to get into here, it is the exact same formula that christianity is founded on, fear = control)

When we look at it in this way, we can see that the 'God' that religions worship today, is very much the same as the original belief that the sun/stars revolved around the Earth. Only when they were able to expand their awareness further out into the universe, were they able to understand that in fact, this was false. It is not some guy in the sky, it is in fact those who created us, and they did so for a purpose which has passed. They left us here to evolve on our own and to become gods. We must expand our awareness if we are to evolve.

The current world is only being manipulated and used by those in power due to what religion has done to society, they have all of the wealth, not to mention the wealth of the christian church!! Its almost as if we are returning to the time when there were KINGS and QUEENS.

So what has Christianity done to make this happen? Think, the The Inquisition , the dark ages, heretecism, satan (as the christians depict him), the hundreds of years that scientific knowledge was suppressed, and STILL IS, the morals that we are founded on today are in whole a result of christianity, and they are LIMITING to say the least. In the past the church used materialism to wooo and awe the people so that they would come to church everyday (or slit their throats in the night if they didn't), these magnificent structures erected in the center of impoverished lands, people living in shacks, while these structures of gold were built. Its no different today, the church is worth trillions of trillions of dollars. This is NOT SPIRITUAL in any way at all, it is wholely MATERIAL. If only more people would expose themselves to true spirituality.. the feeling of inner peace, bliss, and wholeness that it creates. Through meditation, expanded conciousness, and mainly just an awareness of the TRUTH. I myself can honestly say I could not have it any other way, meditation is the key to spiritual advancement.

There has in fact been many occult societies in the past, who were on their way to achieving spiritual evolution, in fact the knowledge can be found today if you know where to look (feel free to ask me in a PM). One of humanities greatest examples is the Egyptians, among the heiroglyphs in the pyramids and temples, one can find the instructions for reaching 'godhead', the spiritual evolution that enables you to become a creator, a manipulator of your environment, an immortal soul, the ability to move on in the afterlife and continue our existence. Christianity is merely a misinterpretation of this, it does not happen on its own, it takes work, the Egyptians and all other ancient cultures knew this.

The religions of today have destroyed and warped much of the spiritual knowledge, and those at the 'top' are using this knowledge that was given to us by those who created us to humanities detriment. Think of all the psychic energy being released in the christian churches, where does it go? Well it is being channeled somewhere, and being manipulated by those at the top for their own agenda. Is it being used to make the world we live in a better place? If you look around, you can see the answer is no. There does not have to be starvation in Africa, there does not have to be incurable diseases, there does not have to be war. If the knowledge of the power within us would only be accepted by the majority, we could cure diseases, we would no longer be living a life of fear. We must realize that those who currently control the ruling positions on this planet seem to have a different plan in mind, religion is their tool.

We must all realize that we have a psychic energy within us, we all operate on this energy, and we can increase this energy and use it for our own will. We can use it to make the world a better place. Which many people are beginning to realize from seeing "The Secret" or studying the LoA, well these are only basic elementary introduction courses to the true knowledge of the abilities of the mind. And guess what, the Egyptians and all other ancient societies fully understood these powers! So why is this knowledge not openly shared with us through school, and instead we must seek it out ourselves?

I would like to leave you with this question to ponder, "Where is your psychic energy going? Are you using it for yourself, like we are meant to do, to live a fulfilling life of enjoyment. Or are you merely handing it over to someone else, allowing them to manipulate it for their own purposes? Such as is happening with the christian churches?"

I realize I may have left this kind of open in some parts, but it is a very advanced topic that not too many people are ready to talk about, and if I wanted to fully explain it, it would take a whole book.

[Michael Chui]

It's amazing. Reading this thread all the way up to Adam's first comment made me sick. Please: if that is what a lack of religion does, then opiate the masses. (If you don't know that allusion, please research Russian history, 20th century.) Try not to paint the rest of us anti-religionists as cold, ruthless, bloodthirsty, and cruel. It makes it really hard to convince people who are religious that they're wrong when they're convinced they'll be eaten alive.

Radical: I'd recommend reading Douglas Adams instead, who was also a self-proclaimed atheist. Perhaps you won't take a holier-than-thou position quite as often.

An Interview with Douglas Adams, Winter 1998-1999

[JHL]

We have the anti-religionists bashing the religious for, well, being ignorant and irritating, and then we have the liberal anti-religionists bashing the hard-line conservative anti-religionists for overly bashing the religious and giving the liberal anti-religionists a bad name and cramping the effectiveness of them bashing the religious a more moderate, concerned way in the future.

One can clearly glean how the anti-religous have taken massive strides ahead of the religious in terms of tolerance and understanding. If this is enlightenment then I'm going to trade in my copy of the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, forthwith!

[Keith]

The Dao De Jing pointed out the flaw in morality codes, thousands of years ago:
"When the Way is forgotten, the doctrines of humanity and morality arise." Or to put it another way: Codes of morality are a band-aid 'solution' for people who lack humanity.

IMO, it is not religion, but rather closed-mindedness which is flawed ; it's the mentality that "I have The Truth(tm) so I am justified in steamrolling you", that results in hate and war - whether it's attached to religion or not. Given that this mentality has been expressed at least as strongly by the atheists in this thread as by the religionists, Radical's hypothetical religion-free future would not seem to resolve the problem.

The non-existence of God cannot be proven. Whether transcendent or immanent, God is beyond the scope of any conceivable human method to prove or disapprove.

Any absolutist claim regarding non-existence of "God" (for whatever that means) is closed-minded and potentially fanatical, as is any absolutist claim regarding his existence.

IMO, Christianity is just fine if you take it in its proper context : an attempt to understand the world and the nature of Divinity by people who lived two thousand years ago. IMO, it points to the nature of Divinity as do numerous other religions.

Originally Posted by Radical

for the purpose of this discussion I am only concerned with religions expressing belief in a supernatural deity/personal God.

What do you mean by a 'personal God'? Or 'supernatural deity' for that matter?

I'm not being facetious here - these are ambiguous terms.

eg. You ruled Wicca 'out of context' earlier using this definition and I would have thought Wicca had a deity.

[Joshiepoo3000]

I do not bring down another man's value, because Jesus said to love your enemies. I do that. I value a man even if he does not believe. This is why I try to speak to anyone in the first place.

[Joshiepoo3000]

Satan set up shop in Hell and made it his heaven. Man was not meant to go to Hell, but for Satan to dwell in it. Satan and Lucifer are two different minds filling one body. Satan does think he is giving us pudding when he puts sin in front of us. He looks at sin as his blessing to us that we may worship him. He sees how much we enjoy it, and so he thinks this makes us happy.

[Joshiepoo3000]

We cannot agree on who is crazy, because we cannot agree on who's views are absurd. I have come to terms with this, and I do not fault anyone for their choice. The fact that God loves everyone is proven by our ability to believe in nonbeliefs.

[John Wesley]

I'm new to this thread, but I find it very interesting. I was raised a Christian but I don't practice, but I don't consider myself and atheist either. Reading the quote brought up some thoughts I have on the debate.

I think that atheists are oversimplifying Christianity in an attempt to ridicule it. They always claim Christians oversimplifies the world, and in many cases this is true. But it is important to remember that Christianity, and religion as whole, are the product of human evolution. You can't interpret religion based only on the dogma, texts, and in the context of a few hundred years. It is the result of millions of years of human thought.

People seem to think science and religion are complete opposites, but in fact they are very similar. In fact, they are caused by the same root - a desire to understand the mysteries of life. I don't believe the dogma myself, but it is quite another thing to say that human religion is complete nonsense.

To me the most important thing is making spirituality an individual journey.

[Adam]

After long consideration, it has been decided that this thread, as it is, is in violations of the Forum Etiquette Guidelines. If you would like to discuss any topics presented within this thread in a mature fashion, you can make a new topic with a clear, descriptive title and description of what the thread is addressing and proceed from there in manner that adheres to the Etiquette Guidelines.

Specifically, many of the posts in this thread violate these guidelines:

Exercise good judgment, reasonableness, and mutual respect - This is a community for smart people who share an interest in personal growth, so please treat it as such. Personal attacks as well as profane, pornographic, racist, sexist, or otherwise demeaning or offensive messages will not be tolerated. "Trolling" (making posts to bait others into unproductive arguments) is also unacceptable. However, friendly debate, socializing, and good humor are perfectly welcome here. What crosses the line is when someone behaves in a manner that degrades the quality of the forums for other members. Recognize that there's a genuine human being behind every post, and act accordingly.

Exercise cultural sensitivity - However, this is a diverse, international community, composed of both native and non-native English speakers, so be respectful of cultural differences. Do your best to give members from cultures that are unfamiliar to you the benefit of the doubt. -- Cultural Diversity includes religious diversity.

Please note that this wasn't only my decision. I had asked Bruce to give his feedback as well, because as I was actively involved in the thread, I felt that I could not form an independent, fair decision. We both agree that while there are some stellar examples of constructive debate, tolerance, and generally good human nature in this thread, that overall, it shows a severe lack of respect and sensitivity.

We also agree that we should get the opinions of other people on the moderating team, as some of the negative aspects seem to be reflected in other subforums as well.

We are considering "cleaning" this thread to make it more constructive, as it is obvious that several people have made great efforts to explain their views. If we do decide to clean it up, we will be very liberal in deciding what phrases show lack of respect, and will be quick to edit and delete posts that are disrespectful. Beyond the initial review, though, we will not be issuing violations during the cleaning phase, so if your post is edited, it does not necessarily mean that you are in trouble.