Went to Church for the First Time in a Long Time

[ThinClient]

Is Stan Lee the Pope?

He is to me!!

 

[stormkroe]

Religions are conglomerations of beliefs, mostly ancient ones, which have as many continuity errors and inconsistencies as anything written by George Lucas. They certainly do not represent the exclusive path to giving someone a sense of ethics or the ability to be productive in society.


Re: my alleged support of advertising: I think youmissed numerous things in what I wrote.

Jeff,
A super serious question, with regards to protestant Christianity, what continuity errors are you referring to? I'm not saying there are none, but without the aid of google what is standing out in your mind as inconsistent? Feel free to pm.
Thanks

 

[Retro Rob]

Childhood indoctrination is horrific. They're too young to even comprehend this. When they're old enough, they can make their minds up on their own.

Don't take your kids to church in an attempt to brainwash them into believing something just because you want them to believe it.

Technically, indoctrination is material presented that isn't expected to be questioned -- evolution falls squarely in this category because, and as I was told in school myself, it isn't open to question...you're really expected to accept it before having a change to critically examine it.

By the time you can objectively examine the evidence on you own, you've already been conditioned to think in "evolutionary terms" so being objective really isn't possible anymore. Young minds are especially vulnerable to this, as you admit.

This is compounded by the fact that all contradictory arguments are pre-screened and systematically excluded by atheists and materialist heading up Boards and Science Departments.

I mean, when educators and scientists assert "evolution is a fact" and imply that only the ignorant only refuse to believe it, how many laypersons would dare contradict them? The sheer weight of authority that backs it is why so many people opt to accept it.

Bully tactics permeate the world of science, just as much as it does religion.

Sorry to break it to you, sir, but indoctrination and mental intimidation is a useful tool in science.

 

[ThinClient]

Technically, indoctrination is material presented that isn't expected to be questioned -- evolution falls squarely in this category because, and as I was told in school myself, it isn't open to question...you're really expected to accept it before having a change to critically examine it.

It's not indoctrination if it's true. It's indoctrination if it's untrue -and especially if it's coming from some fucking cult.

By the time you can objectively examine the evidence on you own, you've already been conditioned to think in "evolutionary terms" so being objective really isn't possible anymore. Young minds are especially vulnerable to this, as you admit.

"We can prove it to you when your brain is old enough to comprehend such topics. However, for now, it's true."

vs

"We can't ever prove it to you, but we're going to force feed you some bullshit that has absolutely no basis in reality and expect you to believe us. Just take our word for it, even when you're older and start asking questions, ok? Ok. Oh, and if you question this or deny this, you will burn in hell for eternity."

🙂

This is compounded by the fact that all contradictory arguments are pre-screened and systematically excluded by atheists and materialist heading up Boards and Science Departments.

Please cite contradictory, objective, peer-reviewed evidence for evolution. I'll wait.

While you're at it, please provide objective, peer-reviewed supporting evidence that Mary was a virgin, that Christ was divine, that ANYONE was EVER required to go back to their city of birth just for a Roman census, that Jesus of Nazareth is the same person as Christ that the Romans wrote about, that any of his miracles are true, that he ever raised anyone from the dead (it would be nice to have heard from Lazarus after he came back to life, ya know), ad nauseum.

I mean, when educators and scientists assert "evolution is a fact" and imply that only the ignorant only refuse to believe it, how many laypersons would dare contradict them? The sheer weight of authority that backs it is why so many people opt to accept it.

Bully tactics permeate the world of science, just as much as it does religion.

Sorry to break it to you, sir, but indoctrination and mental intimidation is a useful tool in science.

Science doesn't have to use indoctrination and mental intimidation like religion employs. Science has these nifty things called facts and evidence to support the claims. In fact, the claims are derived from these two things.

Nice try, dipshit. You lose. As always.

 

[pcgeek11]

Sounds to me like the youth of today are getting smarter.

No. They are just more consumed by their own selfish desires.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's not indoctrination if it's true. It's indoctrination if it's untrue -and especially if it's coming from some fucking cult.

Ah, so now you're OK with indoctrination. Thanks for letting us know.

Please cite contradictory, objective, peer-reviewed evidence for evolution. I'll wait.

This is the most famous of excuses for dismissing contradictory evidence, and vital for indoctrination.

This is essentially the same as saying: "if its not small enough to fit into my trunk, then it isn't small at all.".

"Eh", I guess....

 

[ThinClient]

Ah, so now you're OK with indoctrination. Thanks for letting us know.

What part about "it's not indoctrination" is confusing to you? I know you have a hard time dealing with this because in order to push your bullshit agenda you must believe the stupid shit that comes out of your keyboard, but just bear with me here for a minute.

This is the most famous of excuses for dismissing contradictory evidence, and vital for indoctrination.

This is essentially the same as saying: "if its not small enough to fit into my trunk, then it isn't small at all.".

"Eh", I guess....

I'm waiting for your objective, peer-reviewed contradictory evidence against evolution.

I'll continue waiting.

You'll continue ignoring my challenge and conveniently continue posting as if you've made some kind of point, you being the only person deluded enough to believe your own lies.

This is you, losing. Again.

 

[disappoint]

Technically, indoctrination is material presented that isn't expected to be questioned -- evolution falls squarely in this category because, and as I was told in school myself, it isn't open to question...you're really expected to accept it before having a change to critically examine it.

Evolution, and all of science, IS open to question. Sorry to break it to you, but they lied to you. They lied because they are literally bent on the destruction of humanity. The evidence for this is in many religious texts that prophecy the end times, over and over again even after the date passes. That is because they want it to happen so bad, they keep thinking it will. Their subconscious betrays their insistence that they have your well being in mind.

They and possibly you, just don't realize their penchant for destruction and lies yet. Unless you're the one doing the lying. In which case, I'd like to inform you that your destruction is imminent. One way or the other, you will be broken.

Do you know why you wrote change instead of chance?

 

[disappoint]

I think you and SlowSpyder think you understand things you do not.

I would suggest you both take a non-secular course in these books you try to speak as authorities on.

I would suggest you take a course on how the human mind works, and doesn't work.

Would you like me to offer a crash course?* If it will benefit humanity, I'd be glad to. What else have I got better to do than to attempt to save the human race from itself?

*But who am I kidding? I'm not going to leave that decision up to you, you might not be able to make the right one. So here it is: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=36873605

 

[who?]

You are seriously underestimating the mass of people that are A) LDS, B) Mormon, C) Christan, D) Muslim, D) Jehovah Witness or E) Watch Joel Osteen

9 million likes! https://www.facebook.com/JoelOsteen

LDS and Mormon are the same thing.

 

[doubledeluxe]

So my wife and I went to church for the first time in a long time the other weekend. We are not particularly religious people, though we each consider ourselves to be Christian. Main reason for going is because our kids (now 5 and 2) had never set foot in a church, and we both feel that it is important for them to have some religious foundation and a belief in something bigger than humanity.

Anyway it had been almost 10 years since I went to a "regular" church service (i.e., one that was not tied to a major christian holiday). Suffice it to say I was blown away by the demographics at the service. My wife and I are pushing 40 and we were easily the youngest people in the pews by a good 20 years. No children present. Heck, apart from us no people under 60 were present. No Sunday school either. Was pretty clear that the church we went to was dying, quite literally.

Are all churches like this? Or are there some that have a good ratio of younger and older folks (and which are not cultish)? I have quite good memories of church when I was growing up, but that was a long time ago and it seems that times have . . . changed significantly.

I have lived in 3 different Christian and Catholic countries and don't know anyone under the age of 65 who goes to church. Might be anecdotal and it depends of course on my friends and family but we're talking about multiple generations of people who call themselves religious, celebrate the holidays, have the elderly in the family who do go to services, but don't go themselves.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Wait. For accuracy I do have one young cousin who goes to some kind of weekly youth group at night. Its at church but is mostly a place for them to meet other teenagers.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Technically, indoctrination is material presented that isn't expected to be questioned -- evolution falls squarely in this category because, and as I was told in school myself, it isn't open to question...you're really expected to accept it before having a change to critically examine it.

By the time you can objectively examine the evidence on you own, you've already been conditioned to think in "evolutionary terms" so being objective really isn't possible anymore. Young minds are especially vulnerable to this, as you admit.

This is compounded by the fact that all contradictory arguments are pre-screened and systematically excluded by atheists and materialist heading up Boards and Science Departments.

I mean, when educators and scientists assert "evolution is a fact" and imply that only the ignorant only refuse to believe it, how many laypersons would dare contradict them? The sheer weight of authority that backs it is why so many people opt to accept it.

Bully tactics permeate the world of science, just as much as it does religion.

Sorry to break it to you, sir, but indoctrination and mental intimidation is a useful tool in science.

I understand why you think this but its based on your lack of understanding.

Science is ever changing. Evolution is our best understanding based on evidence. You are free to question evolution but in order to say its wrong you need evidence to support that claim.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

If you were truly Christian and truly believed in the Christian message of eternal torment for dying in a state of sin you'd go to church every week. So while you might like to believe that you're a Christian, you're not.

With respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you actually think god requires his/its followers to worship it/him in a specific place? Pshaw. Per the Christian bible faith and belief in god are all that is required to attain salvation.

Romans 10:9 ESV - "Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Acts 10:43 ESV - "To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

John 3:16 ESV - “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

John 8:24 ESV "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”

John 11:25 ESV - Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live..."

Mark 16:16 ESV "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Note - this implies that baptism is an option - not a requirement of salvation)

Hebrews 11:6 ESV - "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."

Shall I quote some more?

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I find the first comment I bolded curious (no offense). The Bible, and the Christian religion based on such (even if loosely), is particularly invested in the idea that the God of the Bible is invested in, and active in, history. Everything from the exodus from Egypt, the devastation from Assyrian and Babylon, and even the affairs of Israel's return from the diaspora. Even the formulistic, "I am the LORD" plays off the meaning of God's name Yahweh (he causes to be/come into existence) as a refrain regarding the certainty of God's intrusion into the human sphere. The New Testament is no different, banking on the belief Jesus satisfied in a short historical window many prophecies regarding a "Messiah" figure and, as a cornerstone of the New Testament, the emphatic belief Jesus not only lived but died and rose from the grave ascending to heaven. I say this as a devoted conservative Christian with no intent to discourage you--quite the contrary. But I wouldn't say a faith based on a Christian denomination that strongly affirms the inspiration of the Bible is very compatible with a system that dismisses religious interpretations of history. That is one of the more distinctive aspects of Judeo-Christian theology, i.e. that it makes a claim of historicity.

On the second bolded I am reading more into what you said that what you stated but I wanted to opinion one of the other more distinctive elements is that more than "something greater then ourselves" Christianity is devoted to a very specific, personal, and knowable higher power. In fact the involvement of that specific higher power is the basis of any future after death and claims to be the crux of each person's life. Because of this, and the previous point of historicity, the religion has a strong leaning toward exclusivity over and against all other belief systems. I know there are Christian denominations that downplay these elements but they are pretty firmly entrenched in the text. My parents were overly thrilled when I embraced these elements of the Christian faith. They appreciate the values we live by and how we are raising our children but we are also, "all in" on Jesus.

Btw, not trying to be critical as I arrived at my position for many similar reasons as you deposited. But I did want to opinion on the above points as you are certain to encounter those with strong beliefs on such--if you already haven't.

Fair enough points, thanks for your thoughts. In response, I believe in god, and I believe that Christ walked this earth and was not simply a fabrication of the human imagination. But I am skeptical of many events that are asserted as "biblical" because my personal viewpoint is that god acts on this world and others in a far more subtle manner. The influences of the "church" should not be ignored when considering the words in the bible. Man is not infallible. And history has proven that even religious men can lust for power, be it through direct action (e.g., crusades, inquisition, etc.) and/or through coercing people with stories meant to engender fear.

For example, the story of Noah requires one to believe that all life on earth save for what was in Noah's ark died, and that all life present in today's world was created in a period of several thousand years. As a scientist I find that fundamentally implausible, particularly given what we now know about evolution. Therefore the far more plausible explanation is that the story of Noah is a parable. It is meant to frighten the populace by asserting that if humanity does not believe in god, god will destroy them. This is also at odds with other teachings in the bible, namely that god gave people free will. That implies that god understands that some people will believe in him/it, whereas others will not.

The story of Moses is also likely a parable. In my view it is meant to teach a populace that god will provide a pathway from even the darkest oppression. Did god actually part the red sea for the Israelites? Maybe. But I doubt it. Perhaps at that time there was a shallow point in the red sea that was exposed during low tide but covered up afterwards. There are many such points around the world today. Although one bifurcating an entire sea would certainly be extraordinary, it is not impossible or even implausible. The story of Moses also engenders many other questions, such as: 1) If god so loved the Israelites, why did he/it not simply smite the Egyptians?; 2) Why did he let the Israelites suffer for so long?; 3) why are so many of god's people the poor and unfortunate? The answer to those questions is again, in my view, that the story of Moses is a parable. It is not a story reflecting literal world events.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I believe in Christ and god, but I do not have strong faith in many parts of the Bible, which was produced by fallible men.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

It was really the statement and acknowledgement of "I need to get these ideas into the kid's head before he's old enough to really question them" that got me going.

If the information is so self-evidently true that it can stand up to any of the rigors of critical and rational analysis, then what's the rush to get it into their heads while they're still young, other than in an attempt to circumvent their ability to apply those skills to religion in the future?

Because there are lessons in Christianity that are best learned while one is young. Belief in god is just one of them.

 

[alkemyst]

Because there are lessons in Christianity that are best learned while one is young. Belief in god is just one of them.

Our founding fathers (even those that were non-religious) recommended all children spend time studying the bible because of just the lessons to be learned that help one integrate with our society.

Of course, our 'virtual' angst-filled, steel-toe boot wearing members feel assimilation is bullshit and for the weak and that one should take every opportunity that can screw their neighbor.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Food for thought -

Being "religious" and believing in god are different.

Discuss.

 

[Retro Rob]

It is meant to frighten the populace by asserting that if humanity does not believe in god, god will destroy them. This is also at odds with other teachings in the bible, namely that god gave people free will. That implies that god understands that some people will believe in him/it, whereas others will not.

There is really nothing contradictory about giving people free will, while holding them responsible for how they use it, just like there is nothing contradictory about giving me the freedom to drive, while holding me accountable if I violate the speed limit.

But to say the Noah was story was meant to be a parable in dishonest. The story gave some very specific details (exact measurements of the Ark, how many clean/unclean would be taken in, the exact date it would start raining - "120 years" after God revealed his plans to Noah, the length of time the rain would fall (40 days), the amount of time the waters would remain (150 days), and the location that the Ark would rest (in the mountains of Arat in Turkey).

No, it surely isn't a parable. You're just saying that becasue there is no scientifc evidence to support it and now you're rushing to make a metaphor out it to avoid looking like an idiot.

There is no indication that this was supposed to be some metaphorical story.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If you're speaking of the book titled 'The Holy Bible', then, no, the application of 'old testament rules applying' are in no way opinion. While anyone can argue whether a particular part of the Bible is fact or not, you can't argue that it says Captain Picard is better than Captain Kirk, for instance. For the record I would agree with it if that were in there.
The law only has the power to condemn (gal 3:11-12). While it's true that no part of the law has passed away (matt 5:18), our requirement to satisfy it has been met completely in the person if Jesus. This is why He says it's been fulfilled in Him.
Also, I'd take what Alky said one step further and say that it's not so much the difference between old and new testaments, but rather old and new covenants.
So no, it's not opinion whether the old testament rules still apply, of course they do. In the new covenant, however, they have been satisfied through Christ for those who choose to accept it.

* just pointing out what it factually says, not that what it says is fact

I think you and I are saying somewhat the same thing to a degree. My post, #121.

All those things are NOT Christianity but rather people using it to justify their deeds. Do you think people wouldn't find another reason to do what they want if it didn't exist? I guess I don't understand what you mean that they are satisfied through christ. My view is that he made the law whole, he is the second part that was foretold, he made the law whole. But the rules are still the rules.

Also, it looks like much of your problem is with catholocism, and their sensationalist/pope-worshipping extra-biblical ideologies. Congratulations, you possess the seeds of protestantism.

No, my issue is with the teachings of the bible that influence many different sects of christianity to do hateful things to their fellow man. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe for a second that we'd be living in a utopia without religion. But, without religion, do you think 9//11 would have happened? Would there have been a reason to crusade to the holy land? Would safe sex be looked down on? Would African / MidEast countries today have laws that makes homosexuality a crime worthy of execution? Would people who are Sunni / Shia have a reason to commit the awful atrocities we see today? And, much, much more.

Again, I'm not saying we'd be a happy perfect society without religion. But, it would seem they quite often provide just as much reason to hate and want to kill your fellow man as they claim to preach love. Just my opinion, history would seem to support the point I'm making.

 

[pete6032]

But, without religion, do you think 9//11 would have happened? Would there have been a reason to crusade to the holy land? Would safe sex be looked down on? Would African / MidEast countries today have laws that makes homosexuality a crime worthy of execution? Would people who are Sunni / Shia have a reason to commit the awful atrocities we see today? And, much, much more.

Pol Pot and Stalin were not religious, yet that didn't get in their way of figuring out how to kill millions of people and forcibly impose their wills on others.

Religion doesn't make people bad, people make people bad. And people use religion as a cloak to do bad.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Pol Pot and Stalin were not religious, yet that didn't get in their way of figuring out how to kill millions of people and forcibly impose their wills on others.

Religion doesn't make people bad, people make people bad. And people use religion as a cloak to do bad.

Sure, absolutely. Bad people will do bad things regardless of religion. I never contested that. My point is that religion can and has added to the heap of evil that has occurred and will occur in the future. Religion can make good people do bad things, because it is ordered by god in their mind. I listed just a few examples in my post above yours.

 

[Ban Bot]

Fair enough points, thanks for your thoughts. In response, I believe in god, and I believe that Christ walked this earth and was not simply a fabrication of the human imagination. But I am skeptical of many events that are asserted as "biblical" because my personal viewpoint is that god acts on this world and others in a far more subtle manner. The influences of the "church" should not be ignored when considering the words in the bible. Man is not infallible. And history has proven that even religious men can lust for power, be it through direct action (e.g., crusades, inquisition, etc.) and/or through coercing people with stories meant to engender fear.

For example, the story of Noah requires one to believe that all life on earth save for what was in Noah's ark died, and that all life present in today's world was created in a period of several thousand years. As a scientist I find that fundamentally implausible, particularly given what we now know about evolution. Therefore the far more plausible explanation is that the story of Noah is a parable. It is meant to frighten the populace by asserting that if humanity does not believe in god, god will destroy them. This is also at odds with other teachings in the bible, namely that god gave people free will. That implies that god understands that some people will believe in him/it, whereas others will not.

The story of Moses is also likely a parable. In my view it is meant to teach a populace that god will provide a pathway from even the darkest oppression. Did god actually part the red sea for the Israelites? Maybe. But I doubt it. Perhaps at that time their was a shallow point in the red sea that was exposed during high tide but covered up afterwards. There are many such points around the world today. Although one bifurcating an entire sea would certainly be extraordinary, it is not impossible or even implausible. The story of moses also engenders many other questions, such as: 1) If god so loved the Israelites, why did he/it not simply smite the Egyptians?; 2) Why did he let the israelites suffer for so long?; 3) why are so many of god's people the poor and unfortunate? The answer to those questions is again, in my view, that the story of Moses is a parable. It is not a story reflecting literal world events.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I believe in Christ and god, but I do not have strong faith in many parts of the Bible, which was produced by fallible men.

Thank you for the response. Your articulation is very similar to Peter Enns. The debate in modern Evangelism over Inerrancy is quite vibrant, in particular in respect to the Torah and whether it should be read as a form of history or as mythic history (or apologetic response to contemporary myth). I am more sympathetic to Greg Beale and Ken Kitchen. For example regarding the flood someone from their camp (not that I personally prescribe/endorse this position) would deposit the issue isn't genre (myth vs. history) or error but an issue of interpretation and presupposition. Namely, the scope of the flooded world. In the Genesis periscopes the "camera" is always on the Middle East and Canaan. That was the "world" so to speak. Acts 11:28 has a similar use of world where there was a famine in the "whole world" but those outside Judea sent food to help those starving in Judea; i.e. the "whole world" is a term often synonymous with Israel. This isn't playing hard and fast with words but a more nuanced literary approach. Genesis chapter 1-3 is a good example of how words like earth, heaven, and day may be used with different senses in the same text. Using day (yom) as an example: day = the light portion of a day in Gen 1:5; day = 24 hours in Gen 1:8; day = at that time in Gen 2:4; day probably means storm in Gen 3:8. This similar applies to "earth" and not every use refers to the entire planet. Anyways, this is an involved topic that crosses a lot of disciplines. I have my own thoughts and convictions but won't pretend to have every answer. (btw, typo in the text you quoted, I meant to say my parents were NOT thrilled with my more conservative approach and embracing the Bible.) I wish you will in your journey of faith, God bless.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

There is really nothing contradictory about giving people free will, while holding them responsible for how they use it, just like there is nothing contradictory about giving me the freedom to drive, while holding me accountable if I violate the speed limit.

But to say the Noah was story was meant to be a parable in dishonest. The story gave some very specific details (exact measurements of the Ark, how many clean/unclean would be taken in, the exact date it would start raining - "120 years" after God revealed his plans to Noah, the length of time the rain would fall (40 days), the amount of time the waters would remain (150 days), and the location that the Ark would rest (in the mountains of Arat in Turkey).

No, it surely isn't a parable. You're just saying that becasue there is no scientifc evidence to support it and now you're rushing to make a metaphor out it to avoid looking like an idiot.

There is no indication that this was supposed to be some metaphorical story.

You have ignored my point that to believe the story of Noah as being literally true would require one to believe that all life on earth was wiped out and re-evolved in a period of only a few thousand of years. It is far more plausible as a metaphor for the core of Christianity, which is that if you believe in god (as Noah did) you will be saved, whereas if you do not (as the heathens did not) you will be condemned.

An author can make a parable as detailed as he/she wants. All that is required is a little more ink. Details make the story more believable, and thus more effective. Would the parable of the tortoise and the hare be transformed into fact if it specified the date of the race, the location of the finish line, and the time recorded for each participant? Of course not.

Also - is it wrong to believe that at least some biblical stories are parables, rather than a recounting of historical event(s)?

Finally, what is it about my thoughts that makes you think I am an idiot? The fact that I happen to disagree with your interpretation?

 

[Ichinisan]

There's a young-people church right near my apartment.