Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus

by d0rkyd00d 65 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  Being rid of the middle man (rules, doctrines, men's opinion and interpretation, greed, ambition, self-righteousness, hypocrisy, judgmentalism, traditions of men, claims to have/be the truth and way and and life... and loss of faith)... and placing your faith directly in Christ.

  He loves church and the bible. He is bound by a whole list of necessary doctrines. Original sin and Jesus' sacrificial death, trinity, life after death, eternal judgement to name just a few essentials.

  Let him deny any of these and see how free he is really is.

  The trinity is "men's interpretation", want to bet where he stands on that?

  He engages in rituals and "man-made traditions" every day. He is full of bullshit.
• 

  tec

  Oh, I agree, Cofty, he's probably not completely free; but neither is everything taught by religion false.

  It is hard to let go of what our culture and upbringing instills in us though. But being able to separate Christ and faith from the institution of religion is a good thing - especially considering how many false teachings are out there, and how many harmful ones as well. I understood and agree with a lot of what he said. Not all, but so what?

  I mean... Christ did not say go and fight holy wars. Religion does though. Christ did not say burn people at the stake, and torture them. Religion did. Religion said to stone the adulteress. Christ said that if anyone was without sin, then they could cast a stone. Then He forgave her and sent her on her way.

  Witness shunning rule could be applied in the same way... religion says to shun... but faith in Christ would say, let he who is without sin be the first to turn your back on one of your brothers.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  xchange

  Jefferson's video = emotional (heavily edited) fluff.

  AA's video = raw and unedited.

  How you respond to each video should enlighten yourself as to where you stand in critical thinking. (insert sarcastic emoticon of your choice)
• 

  bohm

  open your eyes people! The Amazing Atheist is not the kind of person you want your ideas communicated by, he is a loud, obnoxious, rude, unintelligent, unfunny, imprecise, incorrect, bigoted twat.

  He could not convince me water was wet if he did it using this method, because i would jump out the window and assume he was wrong on the way down.
• 

  bohm

  Not much, i cant watch the video. From what i gather the kid wrote a poem about how great jesus is and how great jesus make him feel and how religion is wrong. I figure thats about 2 out of 3 correct, not that bad really.
• 

  Flat_Accent

  'Amazing asshole', nice wordplay. He did post a response to that on his blog, by the way:

  [Regarding a previous comment] "The full context of the remark was nothing to do with rape and everything to do with this strange new internet phenomena of “triggers.” People now ask for “trigger warnings” if you post something the least bit incendiary, because your dangerous words may be detrimental to those with debilitating mental issues or emotional trauama. I’m as sympathetic towards those who’ve suffered trauama as anyone else, but if you have such issues, it’s your responsibility to avoid triggers, not my responsibility to protect you from them. My comment was meant to make a point about how silly the concept of triggers is, and I made that clear several times...

  [Regarding paragraph you posted] I will admit to some wrong doing. The comment I made afterwards was pretty ugly. At the time it just seemed edgy, but in the light of morning I can see that I did myself no favors by typing it. I regret going in that direction. I was trying to make my point about triggers by writing the most “triggering” paragraph I possibly could. I should have at least provided some context. It was poor wording on my part and I sincerely apologize to anyone hurt by it. Yet again, it was immediately followed up by another post explaining my intentions. Yet again, [everyone] ignores this in favor of the assertion that I am pro-rape and anti-female."

  I don't intend on defending him for his comments, I think that one was out of line - however an apology has been made, there's no need to go on about it any further.

  And still you have avoided commenting on the actual points made in his video, so I can only assume you're just ignoring his criticisms and hiding behind the fact that you don't particularly like him. I pretty much summed his video up minus the language and you haven't responded to that either. Lets have a discussion instead of telling each other who we think is stupid.
• 

  bohm

  Flat Accent:

  " I don't intend on defending him for his comments, I think that one was out of line - however an apology has been made, there's no need to go on about it any further."

  First off , "im sorry, Im sympathic to your emotional issues, but its your responsibility" -- not exactly a great way to convince anyone you are not a total douche.

  Second off, i think it is relevant to have pointed out exacly what character the amazing atheist is, as a general warning. Dont quote him, dont refer to him, least you want your ideas 'defended' by an asshole who think:

  BTW, you have to admit, when I told you that I hope you drown in rape semen, you got a little wet, didn’t you? It’s okay. We’re friends now. You can share.

  is a nice way to make a "point" about "trigger language", or upon reflecting on the conversation:

  Fuck you, liar. All night you douches have tried to shit on me and tear me down. Then when I do the same it’s like, “Whoa man! That’s too far. Calm down.” No. Fuck you. Go get raped in whatever orifice you have to get fucking raped in. I am sick of your shit. I regret nothing.

  Even if he is sorry, as in really sorry and not just "im correct but im sorry i put it that way" (and i will assume he was taunted on that thread), it is not the way an emotionally stable, intelligent or likeable person would phrase himself, furthermore it reveal an extremely poor sence of how to put an argument and a number of other character flaws. For his sake i hope he was drunk or drugged.

  And still you have avoided commenting on the actual points made in his video, so I can only assume you're just ignoring his criticisms and hiding behind the fact that you don't particularly like him.

  Okay, i did myself the enormeous disservice of actually listening to the two videos. It was pretty predictable.

  The first video make some good points about religion. I dont agree with him on following jesus, nor do i agree with him that the two are so seperate as he make out, but it properly feels that way to him and he made a poem about it.

  Now having watched the video (all 4 minutes) did he ever:

  • Clearly define what he believe in and do not believe in (the flood? evolution? jesus hate gay marriage? the genocides of the old testemony? hell?)
  • Clearly define if he accept his beliefs based on (1) the scientific method (ie. it is an evidence-based worldview) or (2) something else?
  • Clearly define his concept of god, jesus, etc.
  • Clearly define religion, and propose evidence and arguments why the two are different?

  My answer to the above 4 points is a resounding no. because its a 4 minute long poem. If you disagree with me please points out especially the answers to point 1-3.

  As to the second video:

  The amazing atheist do a line-by-line refutation of a poem, and that in my oppinion is missing the point (unless the point is to be controversial, loud, obnoxious and finally drive views to your youtube chanel).

  Secondly, his arguments are simply not very good. For instance he assume the kid believe in hellfire and rant about that on multiple occations, all because he made vague statements about being saved. That does not follow, it is an over-generalization and putting words into your opponents mouth. I object to that when i am told just what "follows" from evolution, i object to that when it come from the amazing atheist.

  There are several other points where he does not let logic or evidence (or the simplest care for what the kid actually believe, which as i pointed out above, is very very hard to tell from a 4-minute poem) get in the way of what he think is a nice long rant full of swear-words, but i cannot make myself recall them because it is traumatizing.

  And what is up with the whole 'look at me, im such and amazing atheist' spiell about drinking wine quickly in daylight? is that apperence *really* one you want to identify with your views?

  he miss the crucial element of an academic conversation: getting to understand what your opponent truly believe and argue that. oh, and not being an asshole about everything. Personally i think he is only capable of the later, so fuck him.
• 

  Flat_Accent

  Okay, i did myself the enormeous disservice of actually listening to the two videos.

  First off, I must apologize for the trouble I've caused you. I know it's hard to sit through 15 minutes of internet videos, and how it can just ruin your whole day. Really though, if your intention had never been to watch the videos, then I don't see what you were doing commenting in this thread anyway. . .

  [bohm, posted 2/11/2012] The amazing atheist is an absolute asshole.

  Ah.

  Moving on.

  The first video make some good points about religion.

  The only thing I find myself agreeing with is this statement:

  If religion is so great, why has it started so many wars?

  Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor?

  Jefferson is admittedly trying to denouce religious hypocrisy, and at the same time talking up the main figurehead of the Christian faith, but actually, I think the two go hand in hand. We've seen plenty of times how religious text can be used to justify all kinds of terrible atrocities. And fear of damnation, not moral precepts, was a main factor in the church obtaining a stranglehold on it's subjects. (Hellfire of course, was a punishment only spoken about in the New Testament). If Jesus exists, then he has been guiding Christianity since the very beginning, so there isn't an excuse for the hypocritical stands the church has taken over the years.

  As for the main issue - Is Jesus separate from Religion - Jefferson's video makes no good points. That is the permise of this discussion, the fact that he makes no clear distinction between Jesus, his religion, and other religions. That's because there is no distinction, he is trying to make a concession for what he believes. Even then, it is impossible to separate Jesus from the religion that he, or at least his followers, created!

  Now having watched the video (all 4 minutes) did he ever: Clearly define what he believe in and do not believe in etc.

  No. And I wouldn't expect him to. The video is clearly a promotional ad for Christianity. Talking about unpopular and controversial subjects is going to work against what he is trying to do. How many viewers would he sway if he started talking about Hellfire, or Gay marriage? These things are deliberately kept out of the video - Firstly because those topics weren't really relevant to the poems subject matter, and secondly because those subjects divide opinion. The video is intended to be emotionally driven, so it focuses on the pleasantries of christianity, not the whole picture.

  Now the second video.

  For instance he assume the kid believe in hellfire and rant about that on multiple occations, all because he made vague statements about being saved.

  Yes, saved from what? I think it's safe to say the majority of the people who agree with the first video believe in Hellfire - remember it is a rather pervasive doctrine. Either way this I think you've missed several of the other points made, but I won't go into that again, just read my first post if you want a recap.
• 

  d0rkyd00d

  Recently I have taken to reading Thomas Jefferson's Bible, and I'm in the process right now. I think it's fascinating, and it's exactly how I am forced by belief to read the new testament. It casts a light on it that I rarely have an opportunity to discuss with others, seeing as how most believe the Bible to be true, and the other portion believe it to be false and not worth the time or effort.

  I agree, there are some glaring contradictions in the original poem, and in the new testament for that matter. For instance, the one criteria for being saved is believing absolutely that Christ was the son of God and was sent to redeem us all of our sins. Well, if that supercedes the heart condition of an individual-- if somebody can get everything else right, but still doesn't believe that--then they won't be saved? I call shenanigans.

  However, saying that Christ started his own dogmatic religion in the same sense that the religion exists in the majority of the world today is a little dismissive. Consider this statement:

  There are no absolutes.

  It's impossible for this statement to be true, because it is itself an absolute. When you consider the philosophy Christ taught, it was essentially to free men from the rigid, bogged down legalism of the church at the time. Although from our cloud of millenia of progress it might seem simple, it musts have been extremely revolutionary to the majority of people at the time. The emphasis was on loving your neighbor as yourself, and loving God. So while it in and of itself is a religious doctrine, it was a religious doctrine demanding that people not get involved and bogged down with religious doctrine. To conflate such a doctrine with those that exist today, requiring absolute obedience to man and the church, with no participation or freedom of thought from its members, is disingenuous.

  I won't deny that there are parts of the new testament that also somewhat contradict this overarching theme. But from an atheist standpoint, that's okay, because we're not trying to prove this is the perfect and undisputable word of God; rather, I am simply stating that the majority of church structure today is not only far different from that of the first century, but also from the philosophy of Christ himself. I frankly believe Christ's message started deteriorating even as recently as when Paul started his tour de Europe.

  So while the messenger of the poem on youtube might be plagued by some dogmatic belief himself, when contrasted with the dogmatism and requirements of the church, I find little evidence demonstrating the two are the same or equivalent by any means. We all have dogmatic belief. The objective is to root out those that are repressive and demonstrably false to the greatest degree possible. While Christianity might not have done that, it was a clear and drastic improvement over the system in place in Christ's time.
• 

  tec

  I have to say that I agree with Bohm, and I think he worded his thoughts very well. Hopefully my agreement doesn't make him doubt what he wrote.

  I outlined a few differences between the religion and Christ above as well.

  That is the permise of this discussion, the fact that he makes no clear distinction between Jesus, his religion, and other religions. That's becausethere is no distinction

  But he does make a distinction. You listed two of them that you agree with:

  If religion is so great, why has it started so many wars?

  Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor?

  Religion teaches you to go to war: holy wars. If Christ wanted a holy war, he could have started one. Instead he told his disciples to follow Him.

  On to the hell comment... you can be saved from death. You can be saved from the darkness within you (fear, jealousy, anger, greed, hatred). You can be saved from judgment.

  Assuming hell is what being saved from means is just that... an assumption.

  I think some people cannot see a difference between the religion of Christianity and Christ... because they have only ever seen religion. So it is the same thing for them. The two are so tied up together that there is no distinguishing features. Because of that, they cannot see past religion... to see... Christ. Like holding up a big cross in front of your face, so that you can't see the man standing just beyond you, waving his arms trying to get you to put the cross down and see Him.

  Religion is the cross; not the Christ.

  Peace,

  Tammy