Why I am disappointed with religion in general, and Christianity specifically:
[thesis] In general, religion places a large amount of human efforts to things which are contrary to reality while distracting us from the very real problems we face. Similarly, it makes the notion of disassociating yourself from our shared reality an acceptable behavior in our society, entrenching cynicism toward one another.
[Justification] We desperately need each other to solve the problems we face. We cannot do this if disagree on what is actually real/true. Religion and it's dogma divides us all.
Sincerely,
Fellow Human
Board index ‹ Christianity
24 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: Why I am disappointed with Christianity
by jimwalton » Tue Aug 08, 2017 4:40 pm
I sense a radical disconnect with the realities of Christianity and your perception/conclusion about it.
1. Christianity doesn't place any effort on anything contrary to reality. The evidences for God conform to reality, though they are scientifically unprovable (as is your and my existence). Science is actually more concordant with theism than with atheism. Christianity has a credible description of the spectrum of reality. Any notion that Christianity is contrary to reality is ultimately unprovable, but is instead your opinion.
2. Christianity is the one religion that honestly confronts the real problems we face. Hindus deny the existence of evil, Muslims deny our common value as human beings, Buddhists deny countless things, but Christianity admits, embraces, and engages the problems we face.
3. Christianity teaches an engagement with life and history, with pain and suffering, with politics and people, with sickness, truth, doubt, reason, and learning.
4. Christianity encourages togetherness as humans, and especially as believers, to confront and solve the problems humans face.
5. Christianity, as with every worldview, religious or not, subscribes to a particular definition of truth. The divisions in the truth arena are not just religious, but are part of the challenge of every academic discipline.
In other words, I'm missing your point, and I think you have missed the whole of Christianity and Christian teaching. I don't know what your background is and what your journey has been, but you have somehow come to radically false conclusions about Christianity. It's obvious we need to talk more, and possibly delve into some specifics.
1. Christianity doesn't place any effort on anything contrary to reality. The evidences for God conform to reality, though they are scientifically unprovable (as is your and my existence). Science is actually more concordant with theism than with atheism. Christianity has a credible description of the spectrum of reality. Any notion that Christianity is contrary to reality is ultimately unprovable, but is instead your opinion.
2. Christianity is the one religion that honestly confronts the real problems we face. Hindus deny the existence of evil, Muslims deny our common value as human beings, Buddhists deny countless things, but Christianity admits, embraces, and engages the problems we face.
3. Christianity teaches an engagement with life and history, with pain and suffering, with politics and people, with sickness, truth, doubt, reason, and learning.
4. Christianity encourages togetherness as humans, and especially as believers, to confront and solve the problems humans face.
5. Christianity, as with every worldview, religious or not, subscribes to a particular definition of truth. The divisions in the truth arena are not just religious, but are part of the challenge of every academic discipline.
In other words, I'm missing your point, and I think you have missed the whole of Christianity and Christian teaching. I don't know what your background is and what your journey has been, but you have somehow come to radically false conclusions about Christianity. It's obvious we need to talk more, and possibly delve into some specifics.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why I am disappointed with Christianity
by Apossttate » Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:54 pm
If you want to make this personal that is fine, but please recognize that this is the beginning of an ad hominem logical fallacy... who or what I am is irrelevant to the truth of my claim.
- Apossttate
Re: Why I am disappointed with Christianity
by jimwalton » Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:57 pm
No desire to make it personal, though you started with a statement about disappointment (a personal response, including thesis and justification), not about logical fallacy. I was only recognizing a misperception on your part of what Christianity is. My case is that your claim is untrue when it comes to Christianity, and I stated some premises to support my refutation. We can take the conversation from here.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why I am disappointed with Christianity
by Apossttate » Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:06 pm
Everything about the "creation" story is wrong according to science. The earth was not made in 7 days, man was not made from dirt, woman was not made from man, and the earth is not 10,000 years old.
Please explain how science supports even the very first page of the Bible....
Please explain how science supports even the very first page of the Bible....
- Apossttate
Re: Why I am disappointed with Christianity
by jimwalton » Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:23 pm
Genesis 1 and the creation story are not about science, and therefore they're not wrong according to science. Dr. John Walton has published some perspectives on Genesis 1-2 that are making a huge impact around the Christian world (https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genes ... enesis+one). I like his approach. What his analyses of the text have shown are that Gn. 1-2 are accounts of *functional* creation, not that of material creation. In the Bible there is no question that God is the creator of the material universe (and there are texts that teach that), but that's not what Genesis 1-2 are about. They are about how God brought order and functionality to the material universe that was there. And it is just as much a **literal** approach to the text as the traditional. Let me try to explain VERY briefly.
Gn. 1.1 is a heading, not an action. Then, if it's a text about material creation it will start with nothingness, but if it's a text about bringing order, it will start with disorder, which is what Gn. 1.2 says.
The first "day" is clearly (literally) about a *period* of light called day, and a *period* of light called night. It is about the sequence of day and night, evening and morning, literally. Therefore, what Day 1 is about is God ordering the universe and our lives with the function of TIME, not God creating what the physicists call "light," about which the ancients knew nothing.
Look through the whole chapter. It is about how the firmament functions to bring us weather (the firmament above and below), how the earth functions to bring forth plants for our sustenance, how the sun, moon, and stars function to order the days and seasons. We find out in day 6 the function of humans: to be fruitful and multiply, to rule the earth and subdue it. Walton contends that we have to look at the text through ancient eyes, not modern ones, and the concern of the ancients was function and order. (It was a given that the deities created the material universe.) The differences between cultures (and creation accounts) was how the universe functioned, how it was ordered, and what people were for. (There were large disagreements among the ancients about function and order; it widely separates the Bible from the surrounding mythologies.)
And on the 7th day God rested. In the ancient world when a god came to "rest" in the temple, he came to live there and engage with the people as their god. So it is not a day of disengagement, but of action and relationship.
In other words, it's a temple text, not a scientific account of material creation. There was no temple that could be built by human hands that would be suitable for him, so God order the entire universe to function as his Temple. The earth was ordered to function as the "Holy Place," and the Garden of Eden as his "Holy of Holies". Adam and Eve were given the function of being his priest and priestess, to care for sacred space (very similar to Leviticus) and to be in relationship with God (that's what Genesis 2 is about).
As far as the seven days, in the ancient world ALL temple dedications were 7-day dedications, where what God had done to order his world was rehearsed, and on the 7th day God came to "rest" in his temple—to dwell with his people and engage with them as their God. That's what the seven days mean.
As far as evolution, Gn 1-2 make no comment on *how* the material world came about, or how long it took. We need science to tell us that. We need Gn 1-2 to tell us what it's there for (God's temple) and how it is supposed to function (to provide a place of fellowship between God and humans, and to bring God glory as an adequate temple for his Majesty).
> Man was not made from dirt
You're right. There are different interpretations of what "made from dirt" means. The traditional view is that God manufactured Adam out of the raw materials of which the earth already consisted, in other words, the organic matter, chemicals, nutrients, atoms, molecules, energy and substance of the material world. Traditionally it describes a creative process of special creation characterized by discontinuity from the material origins of any pre-existing creature.
A second interpretation, favored by those who believe in theistic evolution, is that it means similar to what Gn. 1.11-12 say about the plants—that God used the earth as source material for humans, and this verse allows for the possibility that they evolved by the same processes and stuff from which the rest of life evolved: from the dust of the earth. Just as the earth brought forth plants, God used the earth to bring forth humanity from its "dust".
The third interpretation, and the one I favor, is the idea that "dust" is an archetype (different from a metaphor or allegory) of humanity's mortality. It's the author's way of saying that humans are mortal, and if God didn't give them the gift of spiritual life (The Tree of Life in Gn. 2.9), there was no hope for them. See also Gn. 3.19; Ps. 103.14, where dust refers to mortality, not to material. If man was not mortal, the Tree of Life would have been unnecessary (immortal people don't need a Tree of Life). People need a Tree of Life as an antidote to the mortality. It's a statement that humans are by nature mortal, not eternal. The New Testament confirms this in 1 Cor. 15.47, where Adam is an archetype of mortality and Jesus is an archetype of resurrection, and both literally existed in history. "Dust" as an archetype tells us that Adam was not the only individual who was mortal; mortality describes us all.
> woman was not made from man
You're right. The deep sleep was a visionary trance, not physical sleep. God is showing Adam a vision about the nature and identity of the woman—that she is related to him as an equal. There was no surgery done (the ancients knew nothing of surgery and wouldn't even think that way). The word for rib (מִצַּלְעֹתָיו [tsal’otav]), is not used anatomically anywhere else in the OT. It's more often architectural—the side of a building or room. The point of the text is that the woman is his equal, his kin, and his match.
> and the earth is not 10,000 years old.
You're right. The age of the earth as being young was set by Bishop Ussher (several centuries ago) doing the math on biblical genealogies, but but now we know that is flawed methodology. In the ancient world, genealogies were not primarily a way of record keeping, but only to establish continuity from one era to another. Their intention is to bridge a gap between major events (success as creation and the flood, the flood and Abraham, etc.) In the ancient world, genealogies were mostly written for political ends to show divine right. There was no attempt to show every generation (as we do) or even chronology at times. That is, there could be rearrangement of the order of names, telescoping (leaving names out), or even changing the ages or lengths of reign to accommodate their political ends.
In the Bible, genealogies (as far as we know) were never rearranged or the ages or lengths of reigns changed, but the biblical authors did telescope generations for theological ends. The genealogies of the era of the monarchy and the Gospels show show they were sometimes fluid with who all belonged to a particular generation to arrive at specific symbolic numbers. For instance, the genealogies between Adam and Noah, and Noah and Abraham, are each set up to contain 10 members with the last having 3 sons. They have telescoped the genealogy to do this. (This type of telescoping also occurs in Assyrian genealogical records.) The ancients didn't think of the genealogies as representing every generation as our modern ones do. These facts were unknown centuries ago when Bishop Ussher was counting the years to determine when creation and the Flood were. We don't take his calculations as accurate Bible teaching. To be frank about it, he was dead wrong. Therefore, we can dismiss all thoughts that the Bible teaches that the earth is younger than 10,000 years or that Noah's flood was around 2350-2250 BC. And we don't have to assume Scripture is incorrect to arrive at that conclusion.
Hope that all helps.
Gn. 1.1 is a heading, not an action. Then, if it's a text about material creation it will start with nothingness, but if it's a text about bringing order, it will start with disorder, which is what Gn. 1.2 says.
The first "day" is clearly (literally) about a *period* of light called day, and a *period* of light called night. It is about the sequence of day and night, evening and morning, literally. Therefore, what Day 1 is about is God ordering the universe and our lives with the function of TIME, not God creating what the physicists call "light," about which the ancients knew nothing.
Look through the whole chapter. It is about how the firmament functions to bring us weather (the firmament above and below), how the earth functions to bring forth plants for our sustenance, how the sun, moon, and stars function to order the days and seasons. We find out in day 6 the function of humans: to be fruitful and multiply, to rule the earth and subdue it. Walton contends that we have to look at the text through ancient eyes, not modern ones, and the concern of the ancients was function and order. (It was a given that the deities created the material universe.) The differences between cultures (and creation accounts) was how the universe functioned, how it was ordered, and what people were for. (There were large disagreements among the ancients about function and order; it widely separates the Bible from the surrounding mythologies.)
And on the 7th day God rested. In the ancient world when a god came to "rest" in the temple, he came to live there and engage with the people as their god. So it is not a day of disengagement, but of action and relationship.
In other words, it's a temple text, not a scientific account of material creation. There was no temple that could be built by human hands that would be suitable for him, so God order the entire universe to function as his Temple. The earth was ordered to function as the "Holy Place," and the Garden of Eden as his "Holy of Holies". Adam and Eve were given the function of being his priest and priestess, to care for sacred space (very similar to Leviticus) and to be in relationship with God (that's what Genesis 2 is about).
As far as the seven days, in the ancient world ALL temple dedications were 7-day dedications, where what God had done to order his world was rehearsed, and on the 7th day God came to "rest" in his temple—to dwell with his people and engage with them as their God. That's what the seven days mean.
As far as evolution, Gn 1-2 make no comment on *how* the material world came about, or how long it took. We need science to tell us that. We need Gn 1-2 to tell us what it's there for (God's temple) and how it is supposed to function (to provide a place of fellowship between God and humans, and to bring God glory as an adequate temple for his Majesty).
> Man was not made from dirt
You're right. There are different interpretations of what "made from dirt" means. The traditional view is that God manufactured Adam out of the raw materials of which the earth already consisted, in other words, the organic matter, chemicals, nutrients, atoms, molecules, energy and substance of the material world. Traditionally it describes a creative process of special creation characterized by discontinuity from the material origins of any pre-existing creature.
A second interpretation, favored by those who believe in theistic evolution, is that it means similar to what Gn. 1.11-12 say about the plants—that God used the earth as source material for humans, and this verse allows for the possibility that they evolved by the same processes and stuff from which the rest of life evolved: from the dust of the earth. Just as the earth brought forth plants, God used the earth to bring forth humanity from its "dust".
The third interpretation, and the one I favor, is the idea that "dust" is an archetype (different from a metaphor or allegory) of humanity's mortality. It's the author's way of saying that humans are mortal, and if God didn't give them the gift of spiritual life (The Tree of Life in Gn. 2.9), there was no hope for them. See also Gn. 3.19; Ps. 103.14, where dust refers to mortality, not to material. If man was not mortal, the Tree of Life would have been unnecessary (immortal people don't need a Tree of Life). People need a Tree of Life as an antidote to the mortality. It's a statement that humans are by nature mortal, not eternal. The New Testament confirms this in 1 Cor. 15.47, where Adam is an archetype of mortality and Jesus is an archetype of resurrection, and both literally existed in history. "Dust" as an archetype tells us that Adam was not the only individual who was mortal; mortality describes us all.
> woman was not made from man
You're right. The deep sleep was a visionary trance, not physical sleep. God is showing Adam a vision about the nature and identity of the woman—that she is related to him as an equal. There was no surgery done (the ancients knew nothing of surgery and wouldn't even think that way). The word for rib (מִצַּלְעֹתָיו [tsal’otav]), is not used anatomically anywhere else in the OT. It's more often architectural—the side of a building or room. The point of the text is that the woman is his equal, his kin, and his match.
> and the earth is not 10,000 years old.
You're right. The age of the earth as being young was set by Bishop Ussher (several centuries ago) doing the math on biblical genealogies, but but now we know that is flawed methodology. In the ancient world, genealogies were not primarily a way of record keeping, but only to establish continuity from one era to another. Their intention is to bridge a gap between major events (success as creation and the flood, the flood and Abraham, etc.) In the ancient world, genealogies were mostly written for political ends to show divine right. There was no attempt to show every generation (as we do) or even chronology at times. That is, there could be rearrangement of the order of names, telescoping (leaving names out), or even changing the ages or lengths of reign to accommodate their political ends.
In the Bible, genealogies (as far as we know) were never rearranged or the ages or lengths of reigns changed, but the biblical authors did telescope generations for theological ends. The genealogies of the era of the monarchy and the Gospels show show they were sometimes fluid with who all belonged to a particular generation to arrive at specific symbolic numbers. For instance, the genealogies between Adam and Noah, and Noah and Abraham, are each set up to contain 10 members with the last having 3 sons. They have telescoped the genealogy to do this. (This type of telescoping also occurs in Assyrian genealogical records.) The ancients didn't think of the genealogies as representing every generation as our modern ones do. These facts were unknown centuries ago when Bishop Ussher was counting the years to determine when creation and the Flood were. We don't take his calculations as accurate Bible teaching. To be frank about it, he was dead wrong. Therefore, we can dismiss all thoughts that the Bible teaches that the earth is younger than 10,000 years or that Noah's flood was around 2350-2250 BC. And we don't have to assume Scripture is incorrect to arrive at that conclusion.
Hope that all helps.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why I am disappointed with Christianity
by Fish in the Bone » Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:28 pm
> I sense a radical disconnect with the realities of Christianity
With respect, but seeing that there are thousands of denominations (or at best several dozen major ones in the US alone) of Christianity with different perceptions/conclusions, who exactly named you the speaker for all Christians everywhere? Let me give you some examples
> Christianity doesn't place any effort on anything contrary to reality
Absolutely it does, if you're a young earth creationist and biblical literalist, like Ken Ham giving tours to Bill Nye on the big boat, to show him how wrong he is regarding the facts about reality.
> Christianity is the one religion that honestly confronts the real problems we face
Really? Well, what is the Christian position on LGBT rights? Gosh, it seems that it depends, now, doesn't it? Have you completed a comprehensive study of other world views before you concluded that Christianity is the one religion achieving this honest confrontation of the real problems we face?
> Christianity encourages togetherness as humans
Unless you're a Christian looking to take away rights to the LGBT community, because if you allow them to marry and raise kids or go pee standing up if that's the gender they associate with, you might anger God and that's no good. That is the opposite of togetherness. Almost forgot cakes. Let's also be sure we don't bake cakes for the wrong couples.
> In other words, I'm missing your point
That's because you seem to have a naive and rosy view of "Christianity", whatever that even means these days. Now, before you're tempted to defend your particular denominational views, note that I am not coming to the support of those contrary to whatever views you may hold. I'm sure you've got your reasons. I am simply pointing the deep fracture that exists, which would forgo you using terms such as "the message of Christianity is XYZ", or telling others that they may be out of touch with the realities of Christianity, when it seems Christians themselves can't agree on them.
With respect, but seeing that there are thousands of denominations (or at best several dozen major ones in the US alone) of Christianity with different perceptions/conclusions, who exactly named you the speaker for all Christians everywhere? Let me give you some examples
> Christianity doesn't place any effort on anything contrary to reality
Absolutely it does, if you're a young earth creationist and biblical literalist, like Ken Ham giving tours to Bill Nye on the big boat, to show him how wrong he is regarding the facts about reality.
> Christianity is the one religion that honestly confronts the real problems we face
Really? Well, what is the Christian position on LGBT rights? Gosh, it seems that it depends, now, doesn't it? Have you completed a comprehensive study of other world views before you concluded that Christianity is the one religion achieving this honest confrontation of the real problems we face?
> Christianity encourages togetherness as humans
Unless you're a Christian looking to take away rights to the LGBT community, because if you allow them to marry and raise kids or go pee standing up if that's the gender they associate with, you might anger God and that's no good. That is the opposite of togetherness. Almost forgot cakes. Let's also be sure we don't bake cakes for the wrong couples.
> In other words, I'm missing your point
That's because you seem to have a naive and rosy view of "Christianity", whatever that even means these days. Now, before you're tempted to defend your particular denominational views, note that I am not coming to the support of those contrary to whatever views you may hold. I'm sure you've got your reasons. I am simply pointing the deep fracture that exists, which would forgo you using terms such as "the message of Christianity is XYZ", or telling others that they may be out of touch with the realities of Christianity, when it seems Christians themselves can't agree on them.
- Fish in the Bone
Re: Why I am disappointed with Christianity
by jimwalton » Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:39 pm
> "Christianity doesn't place any effort on anything contrary to reality"...Absolutely it does, if you're a young earth creationist and biblical literalist, like Ken Ham
See, but then what you are claiming is that the young earth creationist (and Ken Ham) believe in something contrary to reality. That's not the same thing as claiming that Christianity teaches things contrary to reality.
> "Christianity is the one religion that honestly confronts the real problems we face"...Really? Well, what is the Christian position on LGBT rights?
I would still assert that Christianity honestly confronts the issue of LGBT. It's apparent that you disagree with what the Bible teaches about the subject, but that's not to say that Christianity doesn't honestly confront the issue. Homosexuality was practiced in the ancient Near East by a variety of cultures, and the Bible takes a different stance on it. Homosexual sexual abuse (in the form of pederasty and sexual abuse) were common in the Greco-Roman world, and Paul addresses the issue realistically.
> Have you completed a comprehensive study of other world views before you concluded that Christianity is the one religion achieving this honest confrontation of the real problems we face?
I have actually done quite a bit of reading and study on it.
> "Christianity encourages togetherness as humans"...Unless you're a Christian looking to take away rights to the LGBT community
"Rights" is a tricky term that deserves conversation all by itself. It depends what you're actually specifically talking about, and what you deem to be the source and authority of those "rights." Christianity teaches that we should set aside the sins that separate us from God (whatever those happen to be, and common to each and every one of us) so that we can have a relationship with God and be a loving community with each other as humans. That's what Christianity teaches. As far as cakes, that couple in Colorado was pleasant to the same-sex couple wanting the cake; they offered to find another baker to bake it for them; they were very much "encouraging togetherness as humans." But it's OK for people to have a conscience and to act according to their conscience, isn't it?
> That's because you seem to have a naive and rosy view of "Christianity"
Oh not at all. I have a very studied, realistic and deep view of Christianity.
> Now, before you're tempted to defend your particular denominational views...
Nowhere have I done this.
See, but then what you are claiming is that the young earth creationist (and Ken Ham) believe in something contrary to reality. That's not the same thing as claiming that Christianity teaches things contrary to reality.
> "Christianity is the one religion that honestly confronts the real problems we face"...Really? Well, what is the Christian position on LGBT rights?
I would still assert that Christianity honestly confronts the issue of LGBT. It's apparent that you disagree with what the Bible teaches about the subject, but that's not to say that Christianity doesn't honestly confront the issue. Homosexuality was practiced in the ancient Near East by a variety of cultures, and the Bible takes a different stance on it. Homosexual sexual abuse (in the form of pederasty and sexual abuse) were common in the Greco-Roman world, and Paul addresses the issue realistically.
> Have you completed a comprehensive study of other world views before you concluded that Christianity is the one religion achieving this honest confrontation of the real problems we face?
I have actually done quite a bit of reading and study on it.
> "Christianity encourages togetherness as humans"...Unless you're a Christian looking to take away rights to the LGBT community
"Rights" is a tricky term that deserves conversation all by itself. It depends what you're actually specifically talking about, and what you deem to be the source and authority of those "rights." Christianity teaches that we should set aside the sins that separate us from God (whatever those happen to be, and common to each and every one of us) so that we can have a relationship with God and be a loving community with each other as humans. That's what Christianity teaches. As far as cakes, that couple in Colorado was pleasant to the same-sex couple wanting the cake; they offered to find another baker to bake it for them; they were very much "encouraging togetherness as humans." But it's OK for people to have a conscience and to act according to their conscience, isn't it?
> That's because you seem to have a naive and rosy view of "Christianity"
Oh not at all. I have a very studied, realistic and deep view of Christianity.
> Now, before you're tempted to defend your particular denominational views...
Nowhere have I done this.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why I am disappointed with Christianity
by Electric Wire » Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:49 pm
> Christianity has a credible description of the spectrum of reality.
It doesn't really though. Unless you want to talk about how the bible mentioned actually people and places that DO/HAVE existed you really don't have anything to prove your statement.
> Any notion that Christianity is contrary to reality is ultimately unprovable but is instead your opinion.
This is not his opinion this is true. The majority of the bible is fiction and therefore contrary to reality.
> Christianity is the one religion that honestly confronts the real problems we face.
No, christianity, much like most other religions, makes things up and its followers believe said things. You have no reason to believe there is a literal "evil" out there. People do bad things but there is no devil, satan, antichrist or god, jesus, angels, saints that can be proven to exist. Therefore believing they do exist is causing you to waste your time thinking about them instead of the actual real problems in the world.
> Christianity teaches an engagement with life and history, with pain and suffering, with politics and people, with sickness, truth, doubt, reason, and learning.
It also teaches a lot of hate, ignorance and just straight up lies. You can get everything you mentioned without religion.
> Christianity encourages togetherness as humans, and especially as believers, to confront and solve the problems humans face.
You can also have this without religion.
> Christianity, as with every worldview, religious or not, subscribes to a particular definition of truth. The divisions in the truth arena and not just religious, but are part of the challenge of every academic discipline.
No. There is only one truth regardless of what topic we are discussing. Religion often allows people to think there are multiple truths and that facts are just opinions they disagree with. That is harmful to both the individuals and society as a whole.
It doesn't really though. Unless you want to talk about how the bible mentioned actually people and places that DO/HAVE existed you really don't have anything to prove your statement.
> Any notion that Christianity is contrary to reality is ultimately unprovable but is instead your opinion.
This is not his opinion this is true. The majority of the bible is fiction and therefore contrary to reality.
> Christianity is the one religion that honestly confronts the real problems we face.
No, christianity, much like most other religions, makes things up and its followers believe said things. You have no reason to believe there is a literal "evil" out there. People do bad things but there is no devil, satan, antichrist or god, jesus, angels, saints that can be proven to exist. Therefore believing they do exist is causing you to waste your time thinking about them instead of the actual real problems in the world.
> Christianity teaches an engagement with life and history, with pain and suffering, with politics and people, with sickness, truth, doubt, reason, and learning.
It also teaches a lot of hate, ignorance and just straight up lies. You can get everything you mentioned without religion.
> Christianity encourages togetherness as humans, and especially as believers, to confront and solve the problems humans face.
You can also have this without religion.
> Christianity, as with every worldview, religious or not, subscribes to a particular definition of truth. The divisions in the truth arena and not just religious, but are part of the challenge of every academic discipline.
No. There is only one truth regardless of what topic we are discussing. Religion often allows people to think there are multiple truths and that facts are just opinions they disagree with. That is harmful to both the individuals and society as a whole.
- Electric Wire
Re: Why I am disappointed with Christianity
by jimwalton » Wed Aug 09, 2017 2:57 pm
> It doesn't really though
This statement is so general I can't speak to it. Where does Christianity not have a credible description of the spectrum of reality? It takes a realistic approach to what humans are like, goodness, evil, pain, suffering, sexuality, power, love, forgiveness, science, morality, and countless other subjects. I can't really speak much more specifically without specifics from you.
> The majority of the bible is fiction and therefore contrary to reality.
Again, without specifics I can't speak to the error of this statement. Where's the fiction?
> makes things up and its followers believe said things.
This is clearly opinion and nothing more. Without specifics I can't speak to them. What has the Bible made up, and how can you prove it?
> You have no reason to believe there is a literal "evil" out there.
I do. We've all seen evil. We read about it and witness it.
> People do bad things but there is no devil, satan, antichrist or god, jesus, angels, saints that can be proven to exist.
On what ground can you verify there is no devil, antichrist, God, Jesus, or angels? Is this another opinion? Please substantiate your assertion that these entities don't exist.
> It also teaches a lot of hate, ignorance and just straight up lies.
This is flat-out wrong, but so general it's tough to speak to it. Where does the Bible teach hate, ignorance, and lies?
> You can get everything you mentioned without religion.
A lot of it you can, but that wasn't the point of the poster. His claim was that it was contrary to reality, not that Christianity taught it was the only representation of life and history, politics and people, truth and learning.
> There is only one truth regardless of what topic we are discussing.
I agree with what you are saying. The original poster claimed, "We cannot [solve the problems we face] if disagree on what is actually real/true." I'm not sure I agree with what he is saying. We can solve many social problems whether or not we subscribe to the same definition of truth.
> Religion often allows people to think there are multiple truths and that facts are just opinions they disagree with.
There is nothing true about anything in this statement. Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism all have different approaches to truth. Christianity conforms to a partially presuppositionalist, partially evidentiary, scientific worldview of truth being possible, knowable, and as corresponding to reality. And as far as "facts are just opinions they disagree with," this is an absurdly incorrect statement that doesn't represent Christianity in any sense or at any level.
No wonder you think Christianity is harmful. You accuse it of many things that are not what it teaches, and you strip it of the things it does teach. I guess we have a lot more to talk about.
This statement is so general I can't speak to it. Where does Christianity not have a credible description of the spectrum of reality? It takes a realistic approach to what humans are like, goodness, evil, pain, suffering, sexuality, power, love, forgiveness, science, morality, and countless other subjects. I can't really speak much more specifically without specifics from you.
> The majority of the bible is fiction and therefore contrary to reality.
Again, without specifics I can't speak to the error of this statement. Where's the fiction?
> makes things up and its followers believe said things.
This is clearly opinion and nothing more. Without specifics I can't speak to them. What has the Bible made up, and how can you prove it?
> You have no reason to believe there is a literal "evil" out there.
I do. We've all seen evil. We read about it and witness it.
> People do bad things but there is no devil, satan, antichrist or god, jesus, angels, saints that can be proven to exist.
On what ground can you verify there is no devil, antichrist, God, Jesus, or angels? Is this another opinion? Please substantiate your assertion that these entities don't exist.
> It also teaches a lot of hate, ignorance and just straight up lies.
This is flat-out wrong, but so general it's tough to speak to it. Where does the Bible teach hate, ignorance, and lies?
> You can get everything you mentioned without religion.
A lot of it you can, but that wasn't the point of the poster. His claim was that it was contrary to reality, not that Christianity taught it was the only representation of life and history, politics and people, truth and learning.
> There is only one truth regardless of what topic we are discussing.
I agree with what you are saying. The original poster claimed, "We cannot [solve the problems we face] if disagree on what is actually real/true." I'm not sure I agree with what he is saying. We can solve many social problems whether or not we subscribe to the same definition of truth.
> Religion often allows people to think there are multiple truths and that facts are just opinions they disagree with.
There is nothing true about anything in this statement. Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism all have different approaches to truth. Christianity conforms to a partially presuppositionalist, partially evidentiary, scientific worldview of truth being possible, knowable, and as corresponding to reality. And as far as "facts are just opinions they disagree with," this is an absurdly incorrect statement that doesn't represent Christianity in any sense or at any level.
No wonder you think Christianity is harmful. You accuse it of many things that are not what it teaches, and you strip it of the things it does teach. I guess we have a lot more to talk about.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
24 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest