What do you object to about Christianity?

[Juddog]

To me it's a mixed bag. Christianity had a good idea in that it spread a moral philosophy on how to behave as a human, but on the downside some people took it too far into mean it's ok to bomb an abortion clinic or obstruct science in studying embryonic stem cells, etc..

Christianity is based on the Bible which is basically a wikipedia of fables from 2000 years ago, where you had a whole bunch of different writers all sticking their hands into the making of the Bible to insert their personal beliefs on what it means to be moral, and then idiots down the line thinking that it's real.

If one were to remove Christianity, one would also do away with the moral framework and social networks which it forms that are actually good things for society, since we don't teach kids about morality in school. Christianity is a flawed moral system but it's better than nothing. Unfortunately it's time has passed and the people in power in the organized branches of religion have used people so much in their grandiose pyramid scheme that people are left bitter about it.

Christianity really should have no place in our laws, which is why our forefathers decided upon the separation of church and state, but it still manages to worm it's way into political decisions all the time which is pretty sad.

 

[surfsatwerk]

I object to the known fact that the grim reaper is such a damn good chess player.

He sucks at Battleship.

 

[Juddog]

He sucks at Battleship.

And twister, or so I hear.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

He sucks at Battleship.

He's not too bad at Halo though.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

'science', and I presume you are talking about positivism here, is based on a set of nomological, epistemological and ontological assumptions that one is not required to hold and still maintain a logical outlook on life.

Do you think that this is something I would dispute? That one makes a certain set of assumptions to perform a particular method does not make a religion of that set of assumptions.

That said: i like 'science' and it's related methodology, it's done some great stuff for me; but positivism has been , through positivism, falsified on the grounds that it argues that something can be falsified. A Bayesian model of probability works much better for 'science' than the high-school 'scientific method'.

Come on. Anyone who's studied philosophy of science knows that "true" and "false" in scientific language means, "true beyond a reasonable doubt" and "false beyond a reasonable doubt." If you were so inclined to search this forum you'd find me repeatedly pointing out that science doesn't operate on the basis of "proof."

EDIT: I should revise those really to say "provisionally true," and "provisionally false."

stupid people do stupid things smart people out smart each other: then themselves, then themselves.

It seems I didn't do a very good job alluding to the expression I intended.

what is truth?

A characteristic of statements which are well-formed according to the grammar and syntax of the language in which they are formed, and within which all the terms agree individually and collectively with the definitions we accept for them.

seriously, empirically you can support the truth of all sorts of sociological constructs with both real and imagined origins.

Seriously?

Nothing IRL truly works the way euclidean geometry works, it is a set of abstractions just like everything else, it is empirically untrue but still true enough to make-due; so we take on faith it's basic usefulness.

Please pay attention. I'm not saying that axioms are provable. I'm saying that accepting axioms as postulates does not a religion make.

all theory requires an abstraction of reality; that abstraction is in possibilities frontier that goes between explanatory ability and falsifiability.

Look, i know there's some stuff that isn't high-school science textbook here, but if you study the philosophy of science you're world will become a bigger place and your devout positivism will look much like a religion you once held dear a child (mostly true with some modifications).

What devout positivism?

this guy looks intentional obtuse at times; but only because you have failed to make a logical connection that you take as implicit.

Is it your position that science is a religion, too?

 

[BurnItDwn]

He sucks at Battleship.

Best of three?
Best of five?
Best of seven!
Best of nine!

I gotta say, "Station" almost managed to ruin that movie, b ut the reaper scenes so made up for it.

That said, in my previous post, I was in fact referring to the movie that Bill & Ted were parodying in their "play board games vs the reaper" segment .... Seventh Seal, which IMO, was good, but, not as good as most reviewers/worshipers think.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Bull-fucking-shit, it's "irrelevant"! These "principles" -- which you have heretofore failed to enumerate -- are likely* more fundamental to humanity than simply features of your favorite ritualism. You don't get to call them "Christian principles" just because (you allege, dubiously) the people that wrote the Constitution were Christians.

So, which "principles," exactly, do you think are unique to Christianity and were premises upon which the United States was founded? Please, Poindexter, illuminate me.

I won't hold my breath.

*) naturally, I must say "likely" because I have no idea which principles you're talking about, and I reckon you don't either.

You apparently fail at teh reading comprehension.

I gave QUOTES from the founding fathers, (and a link to a ton of other of the fathers) where they specifically said we were based on Christianity.

And your question about which "principles are unique to Christianity" is a red herring. As I said before, which you evidently missed, it doesn't matter if other religions/philosophies have some of the same principles......our founding fathers were not believers in any of those. They. Were. Christians. There is no debate about it, it's a stone-cold fact, as evidenced by their direct quotes.

Look at the Ten Commandments. Then look at our laws. Pretty similar beginning, huh? Think that's a coincidence? It's not.

BTW, how did I "alledge 'dubiously'" that the people who wrote the Constitution were Christians? Those are direct quotes. It's not dubious at all. They were Christians, period, end of story.

They also had the foresight to realize everyone wouldn't be a Christian, so they wrote the law in such a way that anyone was free to practice whatever religion (within the laws) that they wished. Greatest form of government ever devised.

 

[totalnoob]

Look at the Ten Commandments. Then look at our laws. Pretty similar beginning, huh? Think that's a coincidence? It's not.

You're a frakking nutcase. 8 out of 10 of the ten commandments are PERFECTLY LEGAL in America and always have been.

1st commandment? Meet 1st ammendment. Nuff said.

BTW, how did I "alledge 'dubiously'" that the people who wrote the Constitution were Christians? Those are direct quotes. It's not dubious at all. They were Christians, period, end of story.

The vast majority of the founders were deists and strong supporters of separation between church and state. If you want to get into a quote war, can give you several pages worth of quotes from Jefferson/Madison/Franklin/Paine to this effect. Your quote mine from Jefferson is laughable. He was no fan of the Christian religion..and certainly didn't believe Jesus was the son of God. He chucked out the entire old testament and went through the NT with a pair of scissors cutting out EVERY reference to magic and supernatural phenomena..leaving nothing but a collection of secular teachings about morality. If you consider this consistent with the Christian faith, I don't know what to tell you.

P.S. I actually recognized the Franklin quote you posted..

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble.

Oopsie! You left out a bit of the quote there (the entire bolded part). The founder of wallbuilders is notorious for stuff like this, and has even been caught on multiple occasions fabricating quotes out of thin air.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You apparently fail at teh reading comprehension.

I gave QUOTES from the founding fathers, (and a link to a ton of other of the fathers) where they specifically said we were based on Christianity.

So? Some people say that they are the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte. That doesn't make it true.

And your question about which "principles are unique to Christianity" is a red herring. As I said before, which you evidently missed, it doesn't matter if other religions/philosophies have some of the same principles......our founding fathers were not believers in any of those.

That isn't the point. The point is that if these nebulous "principles" are not unique to Christianity, then they are not specifically "Christian principles." They are simply human principles which happen to be held by (alleged) Christians in this instance.

They. Were. Christians. There is no debate about it, it's a stone-cold fact, as evidenced by their direct quotes.

I'm not here to debate the religion of the founders, though if you think Thomas Jefferson was a Christian in the common sense of the term you obviously aren't familiar with his Bible.

Look at the Ten Commandments. Then look at our laws. Pretty similar beginning, huh? Think that's a coincidence? It's not.

Do you think that no other cultures before Christianity had rules against killing and stealing?

BTW, how did I "alledge 'dubiously'" that the people who wrote the Constitution were Christians? Those are direct quotes. It's not dubious at all. They were Christians, period, end of story.

Define: "Christian"

{snip}

 

[surfsatwerk]

Best of three?
Best of five?
Best of seven!
Best of nine!

I gotta say, "Station" almost managed to ruin that movie, b ut the reaper scenes so made up for it.

That said, in my previous post, I was in fact referring to the movie that Bill & Ted were parodying in their "play board games vs the reaper" segment .... Seventh Seal, which IMO, was good, but, not as good as most reviewers/worshipers think.

Give us a kiss, right on the lips.

 

[shadow9d9]

I hate about all religions:

1. Indoctrination and the echo chamber that religious people surround themselves with.

2. The worship of a vicious and jealous god figure.

3. Pushing religion down everyone else's throats, including legislating their warped version of morality, throwing up billboards everywhere, going door to door to push their beliefs.

4. Push non science as science-creationism. Something without a shred of evidence to support it.

5. Work to fight equal rights for others, including gays, women, etc.

6. Start wars by invoking god's will- i.e. Iraq.

7. Conquer the holy land of the world's 2 biggest religions, and create instability in the most unstable region out there.

8. Declare natural disasters are punishments from god.

9. Refuse to treat their own children with medical necessities, and instead pray, which kills their children.

10. Violence in name of god.

11. The whole idea of some fantastical sky wizard. The whole idea itself is absolutely preposterous.

12. Declare morality as their own, while covering up and protecting pedophiles and other hypocrites.

13. Refuse to let their children/themselves associate with anyone not of their religion.

14. Pick and choose what part of their illogical religious beliefs they choose to follow.

15. The whole idea that some backwards power hungry men wrote up a few books thousands of years ago, based on faulty and completely bogus ideas are used as the basis for anything in the modern era.

16. The fact that any supposedly rational human being believes in fantasies like resurrection and virgin births.

17. Refusing to educate their children about contraception.

18. Refusing to endorse scientific research like Stem Cells because of fetus without any brain matter, but have no problem supporting foreign occupations that have led to the death of 100,000 full born adult human innocents.

19. Tyranny throughout history, crusades, spanish inquisition, killing of heretics, punishing anyone who does not believe as they do.

20. Bogus and hypocritical claims of practicing christianity from politicians, while blocking health legislation for 9/11 victims, blocking legislation for rape victims' rights to sue of government contracted companies, etc.

20. Personal experiences:

-In laws have called me evil and that I was going to hell because I am not Christian
-People who knock on my door to try to convert me
-People who are my neighbors, even in progressive NJ right near the city, who refuse to associate with anyone on my block unless they "break bread over christ" at dinner with them.
-People who will refuse to associate or allow their children to associate with a family and their children because their religion is different
-Billboards everywhere pushing beliefs anywhere

21. Breeding fear and hatred of all others- Current attacks on mosques

 

[jpeyton]

how does christianity disregard science?

yec

 

[destrekor]

You apparently fail at teh reading comprehension.

I gave QUOTES from the founding fathers, (and a link to a ton of other of the fathers) where they specifically said we were based on Christianity.

And your question about which "principles are unique to Christianity" is a red herring. As I said before, which you evidently missed, it doesn't matter if other religions/philosophies have some of the same principles......our founding fathers were not believers in any of those. They. Were. Christians. There is no debate about it, it's a stone-cold fact, as evidenced by their direct quotes.

Look at the Ten Commandments. Then look at our laws. Pretty similar beginning, huh? Think that's a coincidence? It's not.

BTW, how did I "alledge 'dubiously'" that the people who wrote the Constitution were Christians? Those are direct quotes. It's not dubious at all. They were Christians, period, end of story.

They also had the foresight to realize everyone wouldn't be a Christian, so they wrote the law in such a way that anyone was free to practice whatever religion (within the laws) that they wished. Greatest form of government ever devised.

As quoting your original quotes of some of the Founding Fathers would just be a lot of work (damn vB quote systems), I'll just use this post. Also has other good points I want to address.

First, ten commandments?

Have you heard of something called Common Law?
Most laws throughout the entire world are founded upon the accepted norms of the local civilization.
These are actually norms that also existed well before this supposed Ten Commandments were ever written... by someone. Sure, not every empire in the world believed in all of the same things, but you'd be surprised how regulated life was in the pre-Jesus days in many parts of the world.

As for the Founding Fathers... well...

You have taken some minimal quotations and taken a great leap for each individual - that is like quoting one of the moments Einstein spoke of God. Out of context, a whole new belief system can be described for Einstein, when in reality he never made any comments that suggested he believed in a Deity - he was a pantheist based on conversation, and likely an atheist who just really appreciated the laws of nature (most pantheists are really hippie atheists).

What am I alluding to?

John Adams - far from a traditional Christian. Traditional Christianity is rooted in the dogma and doctrines, in the orthodox nature, in the holy word and divinity. Adams actually took great care to reveal he believed and cared for the God cherished by the traditional Christian texts, but also refused to accept everything else was necessary to be a Christian.
In short, you could argue he was a non-classical Christian. He was quite against the organized structure that had stood tallest in his time.

Ben Franklin - this man was just an insanely interesting character. I'd like to argue that he and I share all the same beliefs, but he was a rather ordinary non-denominational individual, with very specific beliefs yet rather unspecific religious preference. He held the virtues of religion close to his chest.

Thomas Jefferson - sweet lord, he most certainly wasn't Christian in any modern interpretation of the word Christian.
He believed in the teaching of morality and the virtues of the fellow called Jesus as described in the New Testament, but lest anyone forget - he tore up the New Testament and removed anything remotely divine or supernatural. His edited Bible became the story of a man named Jesus and the trials and tribulations he endured.
He frequently spoke out against organized and practiced religion, and I can't find anything that really makes it seem like he was a devout believer in a single God - at most, he did hold to Unitarianism, but like I said, I can't find conclusive proof he ultimately believed in that. Historians seem to state both Unitarianism and Deism as the beliefs of Jefferson, and that does hold with various quotes attributed to him.

Also, let's not forget Thomas Paine - that guy was awesome. Notably, he was a Deist through and through.

There were a handful of Deists, or at least mildly Deist individuals, that were Founding Fathers. And some that just kind of went the logic and reason direction, and didn't exactly jump into any one camp.
And yes, there were many devout Christians and Catholics and whatnot.

But to say they made every intention to make this a specifically Christian nation, is just flat out wrong. At most, it was designed with a helping of Christianity in an otherwise Age of Enlightenment brew - or, going with Thomas Paine again, Age of Reason.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

There is no evidence for an omniscient and eternal arbiter and I find it wildly arrogant to assume that, if it were true, he has some direct interest in the daily affairs of humans on this minute speck in the corner of this unimaginably huge universe. The major religions all propose that our actions and our very thoughts are under literally endless surveillance (inescapable even in death) and can be used to convict us in the afterlife. Not only do I not believe this to be true, I deeply and firmly hope that it is not, because what a pitiable state of slavery that would be.

I also object strongly to the notion that religion provides a framework for morality that would be lacking without it. Many of the moral or ethical guidelines that can be gleaned from the Bible alone are hilariously suspect -- some of the best examples of which advocate horrendous treatment of women, gays, and slaves.

As for specifics about Christianity, let's just start with Jesus, although the Bible contains plenty of nonsense from which to choose. I reject the idea that he was born of a virgin, performed miracles, was resurrected after death, and will return some day.

 

[bignateyk]

The only time I have a problem with religion is when they stick their nose into government and start influencing policy (abortion, gay rights, drug wars, etc...) and standing in the way of scientific progress (i.e. stem cell research).

So basically when you get right-wing nut jobs like Palin. I'm mostly republican, but I refuse to vote republican as long as they keep bringing these religious wackos in.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

The only time I have a problem with religion is when they stick their nose into government and start influencing policy (abortion, gay rights, drug wars, etc...) and standing in the way of scientific progress (i.e. stem cell research).

So basically when you get right-wing nut jobs like Palin. I'm mostly republican, but I refuse to vote republican as long as they keep bringing these religious wackos in.

Why stop there? The problem is that it doesn't stop at the obvious moral potholes that you've listed. If a Christian honestly believes (as a not insignificant number claim to) that the end of the world is coming in the next 50 years and Jesus is going to fly down out of the sky and save the day, it undeniably alters their decision-making processes, and not just on whether gays should marry.

 

[soulcougher73]

You apparently fail at teh reading comprehension.

I gave QUOTES from the founding fathers, (and a link to a ton of other of the fathers) where they specifically said we were based on Christianity.

I have this link that says they were not Christian. Does that count for anything?

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

 

[surfsatwerk]

The only time I have a problem with religion is when they stick their nose into government and start influencing policy (abortion, gay rights, drug wars, etc...) and standing in the way of scientific progress (i.e. stem cell research).

So basically when you get right-wing nut jobs like Palin. I'm mostly republican, but I refuse to vote republican as long as they keep bringing these religious wackos in.

But the problem with that is every rose has its thorn. Just like every night has its dawn. Just like every cowboy sings a sad, sad song. Every rose has its thorn.

 

[destrekor]

But the problem with that is every rose has its thorn. Just like every night has its dawn. Just like every cowboy sings a sad, sad song. Every rose has its thorn.

yeah it does.

 

[Ns1]

the biggest problem is no one ever says "THANK GOD I GOT CANCER", or "THANK MODERN MEDICINE AND SCIENCE TO HELP ME OVERCOME THIS CANCER", it's "THANK GOD FOR GIVING ME THE POWER TO BEAT CANCER"

 

[AreaCode707]

A few reasons:

1. The existence of God cannot be proven. While I might understand how some people explore the possibility of an existence of a God, I cannot understand how people have an absolute conviction in the existence of something that cannot be proven. That level of conviction is, by definition, non-rational. I find it frustrating to have a conversation with someone who won't acknowledge that their certainty (in something you cannot be certain of) is a fundamental gap between us. It's even more frustrating when that person tries to persuade me to abandon a well-reasoned understanding of the world for something with no evidence, that asks me to change my life, and has no visible benefit.

2. I can look into history and see many things done in the name of Christianity that were abhorrent things, like the Inquisition and the Crusades. I can look at the present day and see things being done in the name of Christianity that are abhorrent things, like the Waco or the potential death penalty for gays in Uganda. I think that it is reasonable to predict more abhorrent things will be done in the name of Christianity in the future and that is enough reason, in my opinion, to dismantle the institution in protection of human rights.

3. The Bible contains contradictions (Thou shalt not kill / God makes the Israealites a massive war force, love thy neighbor / put sinners out of the congregation, no difference between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female / homosexuality is a sin) that indicate to me Christianity is inconsistent and that the present-day interpretation(s) are merely the most current spin on a social construct that has always been bent to fit the society it's in. I believe that the current interpretations are behind the societal curve and, given the power that Christianity has in the western world right now, that it is slowing the progress of social evolution and hurting individual people in the process.

4. I am offended by the idea that Christians have set up a narrow and arbitrary standard of who is saved and who is not saved and have marked me in a not-saved bucket simply because I don't take actions that I see as nonsensical and potentially harmful. They disregard whatever good I do in the world and instead they often abrasively accuse and threaten me. It's a very unpleasant and negative experience.

5. I witness Christians giving money to those who misuse it, giving power to those who wield it poorly, and supporting those who are hypocritical. I see that they often choose leadership poorly and vehemently and almost hysterically defend their leadership even after the leadership has been proven in scandal and a betrayal of their trust. This provides even more evidence to me that Christians are attached en masse to the idea of their religion, are operating on groupthink rather than individual critical reasoning, and that is distasteful to me and supports my original suspicion that they are clinging to the idea of a God without proof and not because of legitimate open-minded exploration and experience.

Oh, and by the way, I am a lifelong Christian, mostly in the Anglican tradition with some touches of evangelical background. I wrote my post from the perspective of a non-Christian because from that viewpoint I absolutely understand why they would dislike, distrust and disbelieve Christianity. The above are only a few examples of why.

Honestly, as a Christian, if you can't look at the history and current state of Christianity and how it interacts with the non-Christian world and FIGURE OUT why people dislike it, you are not doing nearly enough self-evaluation. The unexamined faith, where you refuse to consider it from all sides and contemplate the potential pitfalls and how you answer them, is no real faith at all.

 

[Ns1]

WoT

everything she said

respect++

 

[AreaCode707]

everything he said

respect++

She.

 

[Ns1]

She.

what she said

 

[Dr. Zaus]

empirically you can support the truth of all sorts of sociological constructs with both real and imagined origins.

Seriously?

Is there anything we can know that isn't abstraction? An abstraction is a story, it doesn't have to be based on something empirical to have an influence and the empiricism is often colored by our experiences.

Please pay attention. I'm not saying that axioms are provable. I'm saying that accepting axioms as postulates does not a religion make.

I agree; but religion relies on a set of axioms just like geometry does.

I'm not saying that geometry is faith; I'm saying that faith is similar in some ways to euclidean geometry: they are both abstractions of reality attempting to find functional implementation.

What devout positivism?

Good point, I should follow your posts better, I did not intent to misrepresent your point of view.

Is it your position that science is a religion, too?

No. But you should see that both require accepting a set of assumptions that are not knowable to be true and only verifiable in their utilization.

When you say science I think classical positivism, just like when OP says Christianity I think baptist.

It's just how I was raised ;-)