Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus

by d0rkyd00d 65 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  bohm

  Flat accent:

  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

  Cofty asked me about my oppinion on the video before and i wanted to be sure the amazing atheist was as bad as i expected, and give a critique of the content. So dont sweat it, the video was painfull in an "unwashed Ken Hovin" kind of way, but i watched it on my own accord.

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

  FA: 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. (...) These things are deliberately kept out of the video.

  it is a poem about his feelings for jesus contra organized religion. if someone made a poem about atheism and intellectual freedom, i would find it highly unfair for a christian to critisize it on the grounds it did not properly define naturalism, nor discuss the authors standings regarding the ontological argument or gnu/dictionary atheism, and i dont see why i should have another standard in the case of this poem simply because i disagree with the author. the topic is worthy of debate, but a line-by-line critisism of some guys poem is a mode of argument only a twat would engage in.

  Furthermore, give me a break about the hyperbole. "promotional add" oh dear, the horror, a christian who promote christianity with a poem! Good thing the amazing atheist did not make an emotional appeal, you know, like saying "i hate jesus", screaming bible verses or put words into the christian guys mouth.

  Finally, how do you determine what is "delibrately" kept out of the video, and what is omitted due to a four minute time constraint? When some creotard douchebag write: "the darwinists who wrote this book delibrately omitted a discussion of how life originated" i want to scream to heaven, and right now i have a hard time convincing myself that you are making a significantly more fair argument.

  FA: 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

  but the christian dude never said he believed in hellfire. What "most christians who watch the video" believe should not be confused with what the person who made the video believe, clearly you would not accept such an argument were it used against you.

  Furthermore, assuming he mean something he does not say, only to make an highly emotion-driven rant is simply a very bad way to argue, and that is my point about the amazing atheist: his arguments are bad and his manners are awfull, not the kind of person I want to be associated with, and in the interest of intellectual fairness i point that out.
• 

  InterestedOne

  When I was in college in the early 1990's, my residence hall organized a panel of representatives from various religions. The Christian panelist said "Christianity is not a religion but a relationship with Jesus." At the time, since I was immersed in Christianity myself, I knew what he meant, but somewhere deep down, something seemed wrong with the distinction he was making.

  The way I see it now, if a person believes in, worships, prays to, and/or has conversations with a deity, that person is practicing a religion. In the case of Christians, their deity is called Christ. If a Christian says he/she is not practicing a religion, he/she is simply incorrect.

  Pointing out the aspects of other religions with which you disagree, including religions that carry the Christian label, does nothing to support the idea that your version of the Christian religion is not actually a religion. Your version is still a religion.
• 

  cofty

  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. - d0rkyd00d

  This is a common misconcepetion that is very popular among evangelicals who care little for the historical context of the gospels. Jesus was a religious Jew, the ultimate Jew who cared pasionately for every jot and tittle of the Law. He believed in sabbath keeping - just not in the pedantic interpretation of it. He worshipped as a Jew, kept the festivals and sacrifices and avoided unclean foods etc etc. He never said a single word about any of that passing away - his followers after his death were a Jewish sect.

  Yes he opposed the oppressive imposition of the law and the hypocrisy of some religious leaders but never did he encourage anybody to do anything apart from obeying the Law to the very letter. He absolutely did not introduce a new way of worship that offered freedom from a single word of Moses.

  Jesus was deeply, deeply religious.

  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.

  The maker of the video is a bible-believing christian. His mind is totally bound by a list of dogmas so long I could spend all evening listing them. He is full of it.

  We all have dogmatic belief.

  I don't.

  InterestedOne is spot on!
• 

  d0rkyd00d

  I'm trying to figure out if you're yanking my chain or not cofty......

  Jesus was a religious Jew, the ultimate Jew who cared pasionately for every jot and tittle of the Law. He believed in sabbath keeping - just not in the pedantic interpretation of it. He worshipped as a Jew, kept the festivals and sacrifices and avoided unclean foods etc etc. He never said a single word about any of that passing away - his followers after his death were a Jewish sect.

  Yes he opposed the oppressive imposition of the law and the hypocrisy of some religious leaders but never did he encourage anybody to do anything apart from obeying the Law to the very letter

  Jesus chose to violate Jewish law and tradition every chance he got. He healed, performed miracles, and walked through fields numerous times on the Sabbath, was strongly opposed to stoning a woman who had committed adultery, regularly associated with those who were "disfellowshipped" from the Jewish church or were otherwised considered sinners, and made it clear that it wasn't what one "ate" them made them unclean.

  Have you even heard of the Torah? It seems like you don't understand how far reaching, restrictive, and complex Jewish law was on the life of the everday person....or maybe I'm missing your point. I don't mind providing various verses to prove my point...
• 

  Phizzy

  I think we have a very real problem if we are trying to establish the "real" Jesus, and are yet using as our authority bits and pieces of the Gospels etc.

  Having said that, apart from the deutero-canonical books, we have nothing else.

  I think that what shines through the bias that the Gospel writers had, is something of the real charismatic preacher, Jesus, on whom the cult is founded.

  The real Jesus seems ,IMHO, to be trying to get his people to get back to the primitive faith of the desert, before the Law and the Torah, so anything he did in defiance of any law or practice was not to show that the Law was deficient, but to help them ,as his brothers, not to count the "tenth of the dill" etc but to go back to the spirit of their religion, as he saw it, of treating your fellow man with love and compassion.

  I believe Cofty is right, Jesus was a religious Jew, I believe though that what he was trying to show was that you could live by the law and be a complete a-hole as many of the religionists of his day were, or you could live by the law and the spirit of the law as he did, and be a good person.

  If the words put in to his mouth about the GN going to the nations have any basis in fact, then I think his vision was one of the Jewish religion ceasing to be important, but Love and Compassion being the guiding lights for good to all mankind.

  Today's religions, even so called christian ones, fall far short of his vision, which would not have needed a formal religion, or rules and regulations, at all.
• 

  d0rkyd00d

  Today's religions, even so called christian ones, fall far short of his vision, which would not have needed a formal religion, or rules and regulations, at all.

  I agree. To me it's interesting at how quickly the message has been continuously corrupted throughout the time of its supposed origin. Early on, no doubt the lack of distribution had something to do with it. Today, there's really no excuse. Yet, I think it says something about the underlying psychology of manking when the same hierarchy and church structure continuously keeps appearing, even when the message its based on is contrary to it.
• 

  freetosee

  Thank you for posting.
  
  I am an atheist and agree with most of what AA has said, but I'm disgusted about his way of communicating. He come across as a very depressed young man with an alcohol problem. He fulfils the stereotype many Christians have about atheists, just like Rick F. does apostates.
  
  I went through my militant atheist phase.
  I never had a militant atheist phase. Luckily here in Germany people aren't as religious as they are in the US. That makes a big difference.
• 

  tec

  I think we have a very real problem if we are trying to establish the "real" Jesus, and are yet using as our authority bits and pieces of the Gospels etc.

  I agree with this.

  Having said that, apart from the deutero-canonical books, we have nothing else.

  Not so much with this :)

  We do have the Spirit. You touch on that a bit more in your post, when you spoke about the spirit of the law.

  The law was meant to be based on love (God and neighbor), and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So that if the spirit of the law you are following is not in line with the spirit of love and golden rule, then you have twisted that law to suit your own means. Then the law has become something other than what it was meant to be. Which is why Christ seemed to be breaking the law at times, but in reality, he was fulfilling it. (such as forgiving the adulteress instead of seeing her stoned) There is no law against love.

  So we can get to know Him a bit through the spirit of that, which He reflects.

  Then there is also communication through the Spirit. Hearing, in spirit and truth. We can ask for understanding, answers, guidance, truth... and we can receive that. I think we dismiss what we hear in spirit a lot (I have); but we can hear the spirit of Christ speaking to us.

  Today's religions, even so called christian ones, fall far short of his vision, which would not have needed a formal religion, or rules and regulations, at all.

  Agreed. Because the law is meant to be written on the heart, so that the deeds that accompany what is written on your heart, flow naturally.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  Phizzy

  We are very much in agreement, dear Tammy,with what seems to be the message or import of Jesus teaching and more importantly perhaps than mere words his example, the one you offer and many more, washing his disciples feet for example.

  I think that is why he had such a huge response from the people of his time, they could see in him that it worked, in their religious and political leaders they could only see something that failed, abysmally.

  If only the whole world would adopt love and compassion , then we truly would have the Kingdom or Paradise or whatever you wish to label it. Greed and selfishness work against that ideal with far too much strength at present, but I have hopes.
• 

  cofty

  I'm trying to figure out if you're yanking my chain or not cofty...... Jesus chose to violate Jewish law and tradition every chance he got. D0rkyd00d

  No I'm not "yanking your chain" at all. I said that Jesus opposed the oppressive application of the law but you are mistaken to claim that Jesus violated Jewish Law. If he did so he would be a sinner and his ransom would be worthless.

  You are reading the pre-christian narrative of the NT through the lens of an evangelical christian. Jesus was a religious Jew not a christian. His followers after his death were a law-observing Jewish sect. It was Paul who changed that.

  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matt 5:17-20