A reason why most religious theological teachings are sociologically dangerous and damaging

by thetrueone 233 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sabastious

  I don't claim that believers are unable to think critically about certain things, but one thing I have learned from this board, is they don't think critically about their belief. But it is offensive to say so---and yet---that is what I have seen. I was that way once also, but have learned a great deal about who I used to be by watching believers now. I have said repeatedly that thinking becomes very liquid, forming and reforming to make room for belief. That's not something that can be done with other issues---but always with belief it is an option. I have found it fascinating, frustrating, amusing, and inevitable. Again, to say so can be taken as an insult, but it's simply an observation.

  My Watchtower days were not connected to personal experience. That was the fantasy, not my current belief. To call my belief a fantasy now is an insult to me because I have worked hard in order to call it something substantial. It's based on my actual experience rather than the words of someone else. You would do well to be cautious of whom you tell tha you "used to be like them." You are basically saying they are still under a spell which will probably put off anybody.

  The Watchtower was the spell, because their ideas crumble under critical thinking. Extracurricular activity required. However, after casting aside absolutism I have found something that is concrete to me. The critical thinking process is still there, it's just not as rigid. Personal preference has set in. Personality normalized.

  If your best friend gets enough courage to tell you that she was abducted by aliens when she was little your response is important. For one, your friend trusts you enough to tell you something that will obviously make her look is crazy. She knows this. However, what if you choose to "default to critical thinking" right there and then? You could say it was all just in her mind. This could damage your friend so much so that she feels bad about telling unexplained stories to anyone. It's interesting how we act as a society. What was identified by an official public servent of Arizona as some sort of immense floating object 1997 called the Pheonix Lights is overshadowed by a slew of agendized news. Crazy is overdone. Where's Mulder? The truth is out there. Like the one ring laid at the bottom of a riverbed unstirred, until chance came and started something into motion that ended in the prosperity of all things. At one point a large spider was required to be slain.

  The answer is 42, in the end. And the dolphins are going to fly into space:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR9JX2fRk3c&feature=fvst

  -Sab
• 

  thetrueone

  Scientific morality, if there is such a thing cant be held by one specific god image.

  The moral structure of the largest religions in the world is " Come unto are god or die "

  In accordance to each of their divine written texts.

  The same thing that Hitchems was trying to point out in his comments.

  This is the morality of YHWH/Jesus by the way.
• 

  sabastious

  Move the goalposts much? You called Hitchens ignorant! Put up or retract!

  Even Thomas Paine and Abraham Lincoln were ignorant to something. I respect Hitchens, not his opinion on the Bible. He's got hate glasses on. Is it even right to blame him for the hate? Could it have been any other way? Religion has been a blight. But, the freedom of religion is under attack and it may be partly his fault. Something people Hitchen's admired would not support.

  -Sab
• 

  tec

  My point was simply that from the viewpoint of an atheist---it seems wasteful to use so much of our riches to build castles in the sky when we need more castles right here. That is from an atheist's standpoint though---and it would be odd if we saw it any other way.

  Well, I think it is somewhat wasteful too (although without it, and some people tend to need it, there might not be as many committed to their religion or drawn to it in the first place, and then those same people would not be contributing to helping make certain the charities and donations and shelters, etc, are on-going)

  But then, so is a brand new make/model of a car each and every year. Or the waste each year in the entertainment industy (big blockbusters, etc, all the things destroyed and wages paid, etc... just for entertainment). Or the ten million dollar homes (multiple homes for that matter) per a single person. Or weekend drinking and partying. Or wars. Or the money spent on parades and holidays (religious or national). Or the simple wasted food because of our indulgences. Or whatever. There are plenty of things to choose from.

  Point being - money is wasted every day on people's pleasure or greed or ambition or power; money that could better serve those who are suffering. Why focus on that particular one? (not just you, NC... I know you focus on the other things of waste as well, but you have said this one a couple times now, so I'm just curious. Could just be that its because the topic is religion, I understand.)

  but one thing I have learned from this board, is they don't think critically about their belief. But it is offensive to say so---and yet---that is what I have seen

  It can be offensive when it sounds like you (or someone else) is stating this like it is a fact; rather than just something that you think. Because of course you can be wrong; or you can be misunderstanding something or you can just be losing something over the internet.

  All good reasons, imo, not to make a sweeping judgment.

  When I talk about religious people in general terms, I always get called on the carpet for not including a paragraph or three distinguishing exactly which kind of religious person I mean, validating some over others, and mainly assuring everyone I am not speaking about

  them. It is quite tiring, as I spoke in generalities for a reason. Now when terms like arrogant and atheist are thrown about---perhaps I should insist on 3 paragraphs every single time to assure everyone that this does not mean all atheists, and this would qualify as

  arrogant behavior, and these atheists are okay, while these are a bit uppity, and THOSE uppity ones are the ones being discussed.

  I do try to always qualify 'some' when I speak of believers or non-believers, because I know how I feel when this is not done on the 'other side'. Sometimes I might forget, in which case, someone should call me on it, lol. In this case, I included arrogant theists along with arrogant atheists. Equal opportunity ;)

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Reverend Chip

  Sab:

  You distract with half truths. The facts are simple: You claimed Hitchens was ignorant in a specific matter: the bible's contents. Challenged to prove this scurrilous allegation, you distract with irrelevancies. And you do it twice, rather than admit your direct obvious error.

  Coward or liar? You are one.
• 

  NewChapter

  You would do well to be cautious of whom you tell tha you "used to be like them." You are basically saying they are still under a spell which will probably put off anybody.

  Sab, you have made an assumption that I was only a JW. When I say 'like them' I simply meant that I was a beliver. I learn more about how I used to be by watching how they are, and I recognize in them things I used to do with my thinking to accomodate faith. I was not born a JW. My religious background includes:

  Catholic school

  United Church of Christ

  United Methodist Church

  Many, many, many bible studies with fundamental born-again types including pentacostals. I have watched (but never participated) people speaking in tongues and healing and so forth.

  My journey led me to read many books about Christ and religion, to listen regularly to certain programs on Christian radio, to talk to pastors one on one endless times, to become a JW.

  I've hung out with pagans and looked into eastern religions. I used to hang out at a commune with lots of buddhism and lots of paganism.

  So don't assume that I was under the WT spell---not everyone here shares the same experience.

  But choose from any of the above---my brain worked the same way---shifting and molding to make room for belief. I stand by my comment.

  The Watchtower was the spell, because their ideas crumble under critical thinking.

  And from my experience, they ALL crumble under critical thinking.

  NC
• 

  tec

  But choose from any of the above---my brain worked the same way---shifting and molding to make room for belief. I stand by my comment.

  If I understand this sentence correctly, then I would like to suggest that we all do this... shifting and molding to make room for proper understanding of something. Anything. Be that science, God, faith, parenting, love, pacifism, etc. We all shift and mold. Someone of faith is not born understanding everything about God and the universe, or what he wants of us... we learn as we grow, as we listen, as we can put teachings into practice and see how they work in the real world.

  TTO - What Hitchens fought against... the details from the video/people wanting the world to end, people wanting all non-believers and those not good enough to go and burn in hell... is fine and good (his fighting it, not the beliefs, lol). But thinking that all religion and faith draws upon what he states that he is fighting against is wrong. He even said that 'weak apoligists aren't really believers'. Now how can he state that? How can he know that one is closer to the truth being taught, than the other? He cannot. He is one man, and his opinion on that matter is as subjective as the opinion of anyone else.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  sabastious

  Coward or liar? You are one.

  Artist, if you insist, but artists use lies to tell the truth.

  Sab, you have made an assumption that I was only a JW.

  It doesn't matter if you were in 10 religions and believed in them all. That still doesn't licence you to speak for my or as my God.

  And from my experience, they ALL crumble under critical thinking.

  I am pretty sure this constitutes arrogance by definition. I'm sure they all melted away before your powers of reason and evidence like dousing the wicked witch of the west and watching her descend into nonexistence. Do you have matching rings on each hand and a cape?

  -Sab
• 

  poopsiecakes
• 

  sabastious

  TTO - What Hitchens fought against... the details from the video/people wanting the world to end, people wanting all non-believers and those not good enough to go and burn in hell... is fine and good (his fighting it, not the beliefs, lol). But thinking that all religion and faith draws upon what he states that he is fighting against is wrong. He even said that 'weak apoligists aren't really believers'. Now how can he state that? How can he know that one is closer to the truth being taught, than the other? He cannot. He is one man, and his opinion on that matter is as subjective as the opinion of anyone else.

  There is an interesting story arch in the lore of a popular online game called World of Warcraft. The main villian, for a time, was an emperor of undeath called the Lich King. He wore a crown that gave him control to create undead minions that were bound to his will. The good characters in the story band together and destroy him, but the crown remained. If the crown was destroyed the undead minions that the Lich King had created would be unleashed upon the world. For the Lich King had full control over them by use of the magical crown and was keeping them at bay for his own devious schemes. So, because the world could not withstand the might of the undead minions a new Lich King was to be chosen.

  Eventually, the Lich King effortlessly killed all the adventurers with a single devastating attack. The Lich King revealed that he had been waiting for Tirion's assault all along, knowing that he would bring with him Azeroth's greatest heroes, who could then be killed and resurrected as powerful masters of the Scourge. Every obstacle he had laid before them was merely part of his test. Now certain Tirion's champions were "the greatest fighting force this world has ever known", the Lich King began to raise the fallen heroes. Fordring, calling for a final blessing from the Light, managed to break free and shatter Frostmourne with his own sword, Ashbringer. The spirits who had been trapped within Frostmourne, including King Terenas Menethil II, attacked their former jailer by suspending him in the air while simultaneously resurrecting Fordring's champions, who were then able to defeat the Lich King.

  Terenas' spirit held Arthas in his arms as he died, then informed Tirion that the Scourge must always have a master to control them, before vanishing in the wind. Tirion picked up the Lich King's crown and prepared to take on the burden of becoming the new Lich King, when he was stopped by the voice of Bolvar Fordragon. The undead paladin sat upon the Frozen Throne, having been horribly burned by dragonfire and tortured by Arthas. Bolvar said that he no longer had any place in the world of the living, while Tirion still had duties to perform. As his final act of service, Bolvar would take the powers of the Lich King within himself, imprisoning the master of the Scourge once more and keeping the undead legions in check. Tirion reluctantly placed the crown of the Lich King on Bolvar's head. As the ice of the Frozen Throne began to envelop him, Bolvar - now the new Lich King - told Tirion to tell the world that the Lich King is dead, and as his voice changed to one similar of the Lich King, added that Bolvar Fordragon died with him.

  Hitchen's essentially wants to destroy the crown and muscle through undead armies that result from it which would end the world as we know it. The point is we need religion, it just needs to be lead by less fanatical people. Religion is supposed to be a friend of the state, not the controller of mindless zombies.

  -Sab