Brother Apostate's version still sounds like a ridiculous myth to me. Anyone else?
Christianity in a nutshell
by serotonin_wraith 105 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
lovelylil
seratonin,
you are missing the point. I said all of it is incorrect because it is written sarcastically with the motive of making fun of Christian beliefs instead of giving an accurate unbiased view of core doctrine. Some of the information may be correct but is written in a hostile way that is why I said it is really not correct.
startingover,
if I want to learn Greek will I ask a Spanish teacher to instruct me? If I want to learn about Islam, should a call a Jewish Rabbi? To suggest that someone wanting to know about core Christian beliefs should contact an expert in that area I believe is a valid point. This is different than the JW's making the same point because even by thier own admission, they are NOT part of main-stream Christianity.
Anyway I appreciate your feedback, Peace Lilly
-
serotonin_wraith
you are missing the point. I said all of it is incorrect because it is written sarcastically with the motive of making fun of Christian beliefs instead of giving an accurate unbiased view of core doctrine. Some of the information may be correct but is written in a hostile way that is why I said it is really not correct.
It looked more like a straightforward paragraph of what Christians believe to me.
But even if it was sarcastic, does that make it untrue?
If someone said "People are actually stupid enough to think the earth goes around the sun!" it may be hostile, but it is also true that the earth goes around the sun.
-
Gopher
Brother Apostate said something I find untrue:
BA- Understands that we all put faith in something. I choose to put my faith in God rather than men. Thank God!
So you're saying atheists "put faith in men"? That atheists have "beliefs"?
If an atheist thinks evolution is correct, is he putting his trust in men? I think not. As has been stated before, atheism is not a "belief system". It is a lack of belief in the unprovable, and an acceptance of scientific logic. There is a science behind the conclusions scientists have reached on how life developed over the ages, and it has been summed up in the "theory of evolution". There is no less science behind "the theory of evolution" then there is behind the "theory of relativity". Careful study has been given to both, and a scientific rationale has been reached to explain certain things about our universe.
Now as regards the origin of life, what started it all -- that hasn't been conclusively proven one way or another. So nobody can be dogmatic on if there was a "person" or a "force" behind the startup of life.
Atheists are NOT dogmatic regarding whether God exists. I have to be "dogmatic" about that.
-
Shawn10538
Isn't that argument the same one that JWs make? If you want to know about JWs go to them! I can't believe there are people on this site actually making this argument. iN ANY CASE, IT'S CLASSIC aD hOMINEM. Attacking the source (atheist website or whatever) INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL ARGUMENTS. i BELIEVE there was not a single fact in the original "simplistic" post that anyone could prove wrong. So, if it is factual but merely contains a tone that you don't appreciate (tone is difficult to attack becaue it often lies with the READER not the writer. So if you have a problem with the simplistic approach, you might want to ask yourself if it is rather the beliefs themselves that sound so ridiculous and not just "the way they are described.
-
Brother Apostate
Huh? Your lack of scientific knowledge aside, that's not atheism. Atheism is not believing in a god. That's it.
Lol. I’ve no lack of scientific knowledge. Do you know me? No. Then don’t assume you do.
You've made your beliefs sound fancy, that's all. What is basically boils down to is what was in the first post.
Understands that we all put faith in something.-BA
Nope.
Yep. You put faith in science, money, yourself, or whatever. But you sure as heck put faith in something(s). God is what one serves and praises, and those something(s) become your god(s). Your belief system is your religion. We all have one. That is the undeniable truth. Now, you can act like a child and deny it, but that doesn’t change a thing.
You are not debating a darn thing. You are repeatedly trolling JWD with the same uninformed nonsense, all of it ignoring any form of educated reasoning, reading comprehension, and full of leaps of lawjik and fanciful representations and mischaracterizations of what others believe.
Your intent is clear- create a strawman to bash what others with differing (and much more reasonable) viewpoints believe, in order to stroke your widdle ego. If you were actually interested in what others believe and why, it would be evident by your responses. It is clear that you either don’t read, or don’t comprehend, what others post in response to your sweeping generalizations of what you see as "Christianity".
It would be just as easy for one to mischaracterize anyone's beliefs and then attack the mischaracterization. All that amounts to is creating and then attacking a logical fallacy.
Do all atheists believe the same thing? No. Do all Christians belive the same thing? No. If you comprehend this, it will be apparent by your responses.
BA- Calls em' as he sees 'em.
-
Narkissos
The "absurd" effect which the "nutshell" presentation aims at, and achieves, depends on its narrative perspective imo: the story is artificially told from an "objective" or "neutral" standpoint, from nowhere (or, from God's own angle?) as it were. And for this reason it sounds ludicrous.
Religion practically never works like that. It always depends on a subjective standpoint (be it individual or collective), which might be defined broadly as the amazement of human consciousness at everything including itself. Which, subjective as it is, is also a fact. Only from this subjective angle, positing a god (or gods) as mankind's alter ego does make sense. It may cease to make sense if you forget about this starting point and jump into "objectivity," but then you're begging the question "who is being 'objective'?"
It may well be that no "god story" as built in cultural history makes sense "objectively". However, we do not make sense "objectively" either. Subjectivity is the rock we all stand on, "believers" and "atheists" alike. Show me a rainbow from nowhere.
-
Shawn10538
First, let's take a quick look at the basic biblical narrative:
There is an indescribably powerful and intelligent being called God who is in existence prior to the dawn of time.[Christians agree]
For whatever reason, he decides to create the universe and pays particular attention to planet Earth.
[Christians agree.]
Having created the universe, Earth and all the species on it (through 'creating' the Big Bang and 'guiding' evolution in the Williams style of interpretation),
[Christians agree, except those who believe in creationism who believe... well, you know how it goes.]
he decides to focus all his attention on a collection of tribal groupings in the Middle East, in particular the Israelites who are his 'chosen people' and who he obsesses over, while apparently ignoring the rest of the world's population.
[Christians agree, although the use of "obsesses" is a loaded term. Better to say "dotes on" instead.]
He lays down numerous often primitive and arbitrary moral and ceremonial laws,
[This is a loaded phrase. Better said, "...ceremonial laws that SEEM ridiculous to the average educated person.]
then gets involved in inner tribal politics and land disputes, inciting acts of brutality, war crimes, genocide, and rape along the way.
[Sorry Jesus people, this is factual and irrefutable according to the Bible. I won't bail you out here, you must own these facts.]
Fast forward to the Middle East under Roman occupation and God decides it's time to put in an appearance.
[Said with a bit of a swagger, but still evidently true as a fact.]
By mystical means he comes to earth in human form, being born of a virgin.
[Christians agree.]
He becomes incarnate as a Jewish male and wanders around what is today Israel-Palestine, imparting pithy social commentary (but never giving any systematic explanation of how such ideas might be made politically useful),
[Pithy is a loaded term in this case, a judgement and not merely a stated fact. Simply omit "pithy" and the sentence is healed of its 'load.']
engaging in faith healing (removing 'demons' from people), magic tricks (such as walking on water and raising a dead man),
[Christioans agree.]
and ranting on and on about sin, eternal punishment for the majority of the world's population, and the impending end of the world.
[Ranting is a bit loaded, use 'preaching' instead.]
He gets himself crucified, in order that he can sacrifice himself to himself for our good.
[Christians agree.]
A few days later he walks out of his tomb and wanders round with some of his followers (noticeably not bothering to make himself known to anyone but those who already believed in him), before 'ascending' into 'Heaven', to wait for the time when he will return to raise every human who has ever lived in bodily form for judgement, then cast most of us into a pit of fire and take a select few into his 'kingdom' for eternity where they will live happily ever after.
[Is this not true for most Christians?]
These are the basic building blocks upon which all Christian theology is constructed. Williams and others can protest that of course they don't really see things in such a simplistic and manifestly implausible way, but this narrative underpins the Bible, the Church creeds, liturgies, and centuries of theological speculation.
So, I take back my statement that Dawkins was being merely simplistic. Apparently the wording reveals the use of loaded terms. Still, the bulk of the commentary was forthright and plain without serious manipulation of facts. But, even in flowery language Christianity looks the same as it does in a plain brown bag.
-
serotonin_wraith
BA:
Lol. I’ve no lack of scientific knowledge. Do you know me? No. Then don’t assume you do.
All I had to do was see that you have very little knowledge of evolution and cosmology.
Yep. You put faith in science, money, yourself, or whatever. But you sure as heck put faith in something(s). God is what one serves and praises, and those something(s) become your god(s). Your belief system is your religion. We all have one. That is the undeniable truth. Now, you can act like a child and deny it, but that doesn’t change a thing.
No, there is nothing I believe in without good evidence or good reason. Therefore, I do not have faith in anything.
It would be just as easy for one to mischaracterize anyone's beliefs and then attack the mischaracterization. All that amounts to is creating and then attacking a logical fallacy.
Do all atheists believe the same thing? No. Do all Christians belive the same thing? No. If you comprehend this, it will be apparent by your responses.
If something in the original post is untrue, let me know. Which part of that don't you believe? I'm pretty sure you believe it all, but because it sounds silly, you try to make it look more impressive.
As far as your lack of understanding when it comes to evolution, I can help you with that if you like. God seems more plausible because you have the wrong idea about evolution. I may start a thread on that in the next few days, so I'll PM you then. Unless someone else starts one. I know there's some in the history too you may be able to track down.
-
Brother Apostate
So you're saying atheists "put faith in men"? That atheists have "beliefs"?
Yes, I am. We all believe in something. It’s our way of making sense of things. If you buy into evolution theory, then, since men came up with the theory, you are putting your trust in men.
Being a theist or atheist only influences our individual beliefs, it is not our belief system.
It’s what religion is, a belief system. We all, therefore, have a religion, whether we admit it or not. Likewise, we all have god(s), whether we admit it or not. Today’s believer in all things scientific will be tomorrow’s fool. Science can only postulate on physical observation, it cannot reveal what actually takes place. Scientific theories are only one means of understanding and explaining things. What is laughable to one belief system may be regarded as beyond question by another, and vice versa. It’s human nature. Many believe some scientific theories, but don’t swallow them all. Those that swallow all things scientific are worshippers of science. It is their religion, and scientists are their gods.
BA- Waiting for the inevitable poster that states their belief system is "better" or more "lawjical", lol.