Does Christianity have a future? BBC1 10.25pm

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Where did Jesus ask them for this?

Who said he asked them for this? If he was doing it right he wouldn't have to ask them for anything. You would make a poor cult leader Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I suspect they did it from their own hearts rather than being coerced.

That is because you are very naive. Let me guess, you think they really had demons in them that Jesus cured them of as well. Cause sure no one has ever done that trick before. :rolleyes:

Jakkass wrote: »

I think your reading is absurd to be honest with you.

Really? Absurd? You would go so far as saying this is absurd?

Jesus and his gang strolls up to a sick (and rich) woman.
Jesus claims that the woman is sick because of demons, but Good News! Jesus is special so can cure individuals of these things!
Jesus then "cures" this woman of these demons.
This woman is so greatful she wants to help Jesus.
Jesus says well come with us and lets help others (by of course funding these missions to help others).

You can swap out "Jesus" with "Jim Jones" or practically any other cult leader from the last 6,000 years and the MO is exactly the same.

Yes, very absurd.

Tim Robbins

Just to show the BBC provide some balance, in another report it's claimed it's bye bye religion!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

I prefer this one myself

Galvasean

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Just to show the BBC provide some balance, in another report it's claimed it's bye bye religion!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197

I prefer this one myself

Note how Ireland was one of the 9. Something tells me the peons mostly clicked 'Catholic' in our census again...

SirenX

christianity will survive, just not as Christianity, as some other religion yet to pop up. 'Christianity' has always been around, just with the names changed around and in different (a lot older) cultures:

robindch

pH wrote: »

It just seems that Christianity does not lead to charity, not at any sort of scale that you claim.

Last time I checked up on the stats a couple of years back, the religious industries in the US were turning over something in excess of $110 billion dollars per year, with a very low percentage (not more than perhaps five percent, at most) of that making its way to non-proselytizing charities.

In that context, the amount of money that religion spends on itself -- and which is typically included under the heading of "charity due to religion" to inflate the figures -- is unspeakably unethical.

philologos

SirenX - You know that Zeitgeist has been thoroughly refuted right? Even Skeptics Magazine had an article about how woefully bad it was.

Galvasean

Jakkass wrote: »

SirenX - You know that Zeitgeist has been thoroughly refuted right? Even Skeptics Magazine had an article about how woefully bad it was.

Indeed. You won't find any regulars from either side of the fence 'round here associating themselves with that clap trap. Of course, I would say that.

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

It just seems that Christianity does not lead to charity, not at any sort of scale that you claim.

Certainly, it does not follow that you join a church and BANG, you are mr selfless. Its about ones heart. Just like when a man enters a marriage, it does not automatically follow that he becomes a faithful husband. Titles are just that, titles. Actions will define the abundance of ones heart and expose hypocrisy. Jesus tells us this. He says himself that not everyone who calls on his name is a follower. He tells us by our fruits we will be known.

For a lot of European history, churches of various Christian denominations held a lot of power, enough power to influence the structure and ethos of the societies they controlled. In no case did they produce, or even come close to producing anything fair or equitable.

Firstly, churches are not Christians. From the very beginning of Christianity, various churches have been chastised. You need just look to Pauls letters, or the Revelation to John. Finally, with the coming of Constantine, it was bastardised and made a tool of the Roman Empire. However, just like Christ was a humble carpenter in a humble household, so Christians were and are. If you want to see real Christianity, you don't look at religions self appointed hierarchies. You look at the people who actually FOLLOW Jesus, as humble servants.

Secondly, your view about the history of Europe is simply reading your views into history. Common in atheism. An 'all good came from scientific discovery, and religion just held it back.' line of thought. Christianity, even in its deformed states, has had has tempered man. People like William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, Florence Nightingale, the founders of the Red Cross etc. Such people were inspired through their Christian faith and made a real change for the better. Christians are STILL doing such work inspired by their faith.

Even today in US (on the face of it a very Christian country)

Remember that if we use such terms, we must also recognise, on the face of it, that China and North Korea are very atheist countries. I'd rather leave such correlations aside. For if we follow it to its conclusion, we can see that the nations with a strong Christian history, while still far from being perfect, are the places we associate with more liberty.

No you undoubtedly will come back with some retort that various Popes surrounding themselves with riches aren't your kind of Christian, but that would be to admit the point - Christianity doesn't lead to charity

I never said it did. I said that those people who ARE following Jesus, are baring the fruit of their convictions, NOT that everyone who accepts Christ becomes charitable.

- you may have a narrower definition of your true Christianity which does,

Following Christ is what it is. A non believer has the same tools as a believer to see what a Christian (In the sense of someone who FOLLOWS Christ) is.

but the greater claim about Christianity in general is not true.

I think that the evidence contradicts you. For many Christians, their faith is alive and has bears fruit. Many involved in selfless devotion, giving of their very substance, not merely of their excess.

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you a gnostic atheist now? :pac:

Why isn't Christianity true?

Well, Jakkass, are you claiming that Christianity is true?

If yes, then have you demonstrated why it is true?

If no, then why are you disputing Wicknight's statement?

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, why do you think that Jesus manipulated others?

How about this for manipulation:

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
“Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Matthew 19:16-21.

I think even David Koresh would have been impressed at that level of manipulation.

pH

JimiTime wrote: »

I never said it did. I said that those people who ARE following Jesus, are baring the fruit of their convictions, NOT that everyone who accepts Christ becomes charitable.

Which is what I said, glad we're in agreement here, being a Christian does not make you charitable. Sure some Christians are charitable, but then again so are some left handed people, but no one would claim that being left handed in some way influences your charitable inclinations, in much the same was as being Christian doesn't seem to either.

philologos

pH: What do you make of the survey I linked to a few posts ago which shows that there is a correlation between Bible reading, and giving and volunteering?
Article in the Guardian on this also.

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

pH: What do you make of the survey I linked to a few posts ago which shows that there is a correlation between Bible reading, and giving and volunteering?
Article in the Guardian on this also.

Once again here's the problem, it's a closed survey, done for a group that makes the group look good. Whatever else you could say, even if you could 100% verify the bone-fides of the survey-takers, it's very poor stats.

So even if you could verify the data, then if you could redo the stats, even then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

One thing (a quick read I can't be sure) it doesn't seem to make clear, is relating to the very basic question which was discussed a while ago "Is advancing of religion a charitable act?"

Do the volunteering figures in that survey exclude actions such as volunteering within the church, or charitable acts such as "spreading the gospel"?

Improbable

JimiTime wrote: »

Of course you espoused it. here is your quote:

"I hope that eventually, all religion dwindles down to what it should be. Something that people believe in the privacy of their own minds without making the rest of us suffer for it."

Yet, it is Christ that motivates so many people to relieve ACTUAL suffering. As I said, you render such words as 'suffering' completely worthless when you espouse a notion that if someone doesn't keep their faith private you 'suffer'. You don't know you're born. You undermine ACTUAL suffering, while at the same time ridicule the motive that is behind so many people actively dedicating themselves to easing ACTUAL suffering.

Did you even bother reading the rest of my post? If after this one, your responses aren't more considered or at least not spouting the same rhetoric post after post, then I will proceed to ignore it. Let's pay attention now...

The idea of christ can cause people to do good or it can cause people to do bad. The only way in which I might be making other peoples suffering "worthless" as you put it would be if humans were lacking enough intellect to understand that there are many different degrees of suffering. I don't think you're that stupid, so let's stop misinterpreting my posts and fighting against a point that I did not make. I never deny that there might be religious people that dedicate their entire lives to helping those less fortunate (though I have never met one, or know anyone who has met one or know anyone who knows anyone who has met one). But at the same time, you cannot deny that christ has caused unbelievable evil in the world. His intentions are irrelevant because he is the direct cause. Unless like I said before, you believe that bad people are bad because they're bad and that good people are good because of christ.

So you believe that:

A) Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, regardless of christ.

People do good things because of christ and people do bad things because of christ.

C) People do good things because of christ and people do bad things because they're bad.

If A, then christ is irrelevant.
If B, then christ is capable of inspiring both good and evil.
If C, then you're disingenuous in your posts.

JimiTime wrote: »

How its complete nonsense that Christians are motivated to do good things because of the threat of hell? Simple, most don't even think about hell in terms of themselves. Love and faith are the motives. A desire to bring light to the darkness, and emulate Christs love for mankind.

So you know all of these christians personally do you? You know their internal motivations?

CiaranMT

Improbable wrote: »

So you know all of these christians personally do you? You know their internal motivations?

You should know well by now that Jimi speaks for all Christians, all the time. It's why he doesn't make a whole lot of sense some of the time.

All those voices and opinions to speak for, it can get a bit deafening.

JimiTime

Improbable wrote: »

Did you even bother reading the rest of my post?

yes I did. I thought it best not to follow you away from your denial of what you espoused. The content that answers your question is in my answer to Ph.

If after this one, your responses aren't more considered or at least not spouting the same rhetoric post after post, then I will proceed to ignore it.

I don't really do threats tbh. Ignore away, I wont be loosing sleep.