Add-on to Creation Vs Evolution...Reply to JustHalf and anyone that is interested

Gazza22

Ok i should have just posted the reply directly after you comment but i have ended up writing so much that i wouldn't help opening it into a new thread, this can be justified because it does have quite a good few views in it that could be debated...

I would appreciate that if you took the time to view this, that you would also take the time to post, please understand this is not just for JustHalf but intended as a general discussion, thanks!.

JustHalf wrote:

You should a good read of charter point 3 and probably point 6, gazza22

3. Arguments such as "There is no God, therefore..." will not be tolerated. Don't start off with a conclusion which your audience is bound to disagree with!

4.Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult. This is meant to be a place of debate where you can challenge ideas all you like but don't go outside boundaries of taste or decency and don't get personal.

Ok in relation to point 3, yes i suppose you would disagree but even the most devout christians would agree that alot of the incidents in the bible are in a sense ridiculous( maybe i havent put that in the right way sorry), they are not always meant to be taken literally but were used to show the greatness of their subject, exaggeration in another word. The incidents in the bible are meant for lessons and messages rather than being historical documents on all accounts.

Point 4, sorry for insulting you. Yes and my comment was open to debate. You want a proper discussion, ok heres one although i never planned on talking about this so much.

What if it was the greatest story ever 'sold' (T.D.C) and a work of fiction to comemorate a great man. It is obviously biased and suited to the beliefs of the people who wrote it...they were obviously not going to write any negative comments, who knows maybe the people with the other side of the story were all killed of by the church of the time. I will stop here because i have little faith and will probably not get far on this forum.

Now on to the question at hand, in my view yes, the story of creation is totally ridiculous and impossible. The theory of creation i'm afraid dwarfs evolution in this modern age and anyone who really belives in the world being created in the way documented in the bible would really want to get a grip, maybe study some science.
How do these really compete with science:
-The Resurrection
-The Virgin Birth
-Creation
Oh and about these whole appearances, what have all the spirits gone on vacation now? Hum, coincidence because we live in a world of technology now and people won't get away with these tails when cameras ect. are found practically everywhere.
Oh and what's the deal with judgement day LOL, this is a real beauty, can god not just let us keep the f*cking planet forever? Noooooo it has to be destroyed, another scare tactic if you ask me, although i would be surprised if many belive this anyway.

I just think that the only reason religion is managing to stay alive in modern times is because parents are brainwashing their children into believing in god from a ridiculously young age. Do you really think that religion would survive if lets say it was illegal to press religion on people until they were older and able to make an informed decision ??? Not a chance, religion would be gone straight out the door. Anyway, i give Christianity a 100 years of life max (200 if they are lucky)...the future generations will hopefully come to their senses.

Wouldn't the world be so much better without religion? There would have been no wars over religion...the people of africa would more than likely have a totally lower aids population (anti-Contraceptives)...I wouldn't be talking about this now...the state would not be paying those hugh sums of money to the poor victims of religious staff...i would go on for hours

I am sorry this is cruel, but i look forward to the day (it could possibly be in the near future) that religion is found out to be what it really is, a big waste of time. It will maybe occur around the same time that smokers realise that smoking really is a waste of time too.

I won't be on boards for a while after tonight but i actually look forward to being pulled apart by all the religious people when i get back...feel free to support too!

Gazza

Phil_321

Blasphemy!

Btw, Here's three extra commandments from the first edition of the bible before it was revised:
11. Doth shall not reavel to the the people that religion is pure fantasy invented by their ignorant anscestors thousands of years ago.
12. Doth shall continue to be a good unquestioning sheep.
13. Doth shall indulge in blind belief and not be boothered with silly concepts such as proof.

You're right about the expected lifespan of Christianity. I think that in it's final years it'll be viewed as a kind of cult that only the very naive and weak cling to.

robindch

> I just think that the only reason religion is managing to stay alive
> in modern times is because parents are brainwashing their children
> into believing in god from a ridiculously young age.

This indoctrination has been going on since the year dot, and, together with providing a general 'social' network (for want of a better term), were the two principal means of sustaining the existence of the local religion. The only difference now, is that it's now socially acceptable within most places in Europe, particularly the cities (where the apostate rate is the highest) not to subscribe to any particular religion, whereas in previous years (up 'til quite recently in Ireland, though still in many islamic countries and much of the bible belt in the USA), to be seen not to attend some religious outlet or other is chancing one's social life -- this is one of the reasons why, I believe, that the megachurches in the USA offer a far wider range of services (creche, school, teen club, dating club, 'outreach', etc) than just feel-good preaching; in order to propagate, they *have* to make themselves attractive to believers, and once, in, to make the departure of a believer an awful prospect (ref: the requirement of mormons to cut off all contact with apostates).

Of course, it doesn't just happen from parents -- see this post and this one from the public forum for the 'victory outreach dublin' outfit which 'General Valdez' posted a few days ago. In case the messages disappear, a poster named 'stewey' posted about the efforts of the church to grab schoolkids on their way home from school:

] It's official every monday at 4o'clock were hitting the streets we
] gonna start impacting the local areas shining light into the darkness

then, the worrying:

] Thats what we t6rying to do catch the youth coming from school

(aren't there laws against people doing this?)

] Could yiz please keep our evangelism in prayer we were out
] today and the youth are hard to reach sometimes they dont
] listen. We had to climb fences and thde kids abused some of
] us. Robbie got a smack of a ball in the face.

Oh, well.

> i give Christianity a 100 years of life max

It could disappear as quickly as that -- East Germany managed to get rid of large amounts of it much faster, as it taught kids that religion was nonsense and made it dangerous for anybody to attend religious gatherings. At least one East German friend of mine told me that, upon her arrival in Ireland ten years or so ago, that she couldn't believe that religion was taken so seriously by such a large proportion of the population.

Having said that, though, I don't think there's much chance that christianity, or any other religion, will die out within 100 years, though the form of each religion, and their means of propagation, and what they say, will necessarily change. Religion simply provides too many comforting thoughts, simple certainties and justifications for basic biologically-based prejudices for it ever totally to disappear.

JustHalf

I should probably point out a few things. Disclaimer: I haven't been the moderator of this board for many months, so my views do not necessarily reflect those of the current mods.

gazza22 wrote:

3. Arguments such as "There is no God, therefore..." will not be tolerated. Don't start off with a conclusion which your audience is bound to disagree with!

Ok in relation to point 3, yes i suppose you would disagree but even the most devout christians would agree that alot of the incidents in the bible are in a sense ridiculous( maybe i havent put that in the right way sorry), they are not always meant to be taken literally but were used to show the greatness of their subject, exaggeration in another word. The incidents in the bible are meant for lessons and messages rather than being historical documents on all accounts.

On second thought, I would say that point three of the charter doesn't apply directly to what you said. Please disregard the implication that it did.

gazza22 wrote:

4. Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult. This is meant to be a place of debate where you can challenge ideas all you like but don't go outside boundaries of taste or decency and don't get personal.

Point 4, sorry for insulting you. Yes and my comment was open to debate. You want a proper discussion, ok heres one although i never planned on talking about this so much.

It wasn't trying to draw attention to something that was insulting... I was drawing attention to something that was obviously intended to inflame. I can't see your comment any other way.

gazza22 wrote:

What if it was the greatest story ever 'sold' (T.D.C) and a work of fiction to comemorate a great man. It is obviously biased and suited to the beliefs of the people who wrote it...they were obviously not going to write any negative comments, who knows maybe the people with the other side of the story were all killed of by the church of the time. I will stop here because i have little faith and will probably not get far on this forum.

Woah, you seem quite paranoid gazza22. Are you worried we'll dispatch the albino assassins?

gazza22 wrote:

Now on to the question at hand, in my view yes, the story of creation is totally ridiculous and impossible. The theory of creation i'm afraid dwarfs evolution in this modern age and anyone who really belives in the world being created in the way documented in the bible would really want to get a grip, maybe study some science.

Many (I would say the vast majority) of Christians believe that the Earth is several billion years old, and that evolution is the mechanism through which human life developed on this planet. What's your point?

gazza22 wrote:

Oh and what's the deal with judgement day LOL, this is a real beauty, can god not just let us keep the f*cking planet forever? Noooooo it has to be destroyed, another scare tactic if you ask me, although i would be surprised if many belive this anyway.

Well, you really should believe that the planet is going to be destroyed. When the sun runs hydrogen and starts to burn helium, expanding to engulf the Earth... well, we will be fairly bolloxed. But this is an aside!

gazza22 wrote:

I just think that the only reason religion is managing to stay alive in modern times is because parents are brainwashing their children into believing in god from a ridiculously young age. Do you really think that religion would survive if lets say it was illegal to press religion on people until they were older and able to make an informed decision ??? Not a chance, religion would be gone straight out the door. Anyway, i give Christianity a 100 years of life max (200 if they are lucky)...the future generations will hopefully come to their senses.

You should think about what you are saying. It is fundamentally flawed. For a start, many people become Christians much later in life - they are not "brainwashed" by their parents. Secondly, you are suggesting some ridiculous state intervention in how parents raise their children. Thirdly, your final prediction is absurd in the extreme.

gazza22 wrote:

Wouldn't the world be so much better without religion? There would have been no wars over religion...the people of africa would more than likely have a totally lower aids population (anti-Contraceptives)...I wouldn't be talking about this now...the state would not be paying those hugh sums of money to the poor victims of religious staff...i would go on for hours

About half of these are crap. It's half four in the morning, I'm not going into them now.

Phil_321

JustHalf wrote:

You should think about what you are saying. It is fundamentally flawed. For a start, many people become Christians much later in life - they are not "brainwashed" by their parents.

I've never heard of anyone becoming a Chrisian later in life other than reformed alcoholics and guys doing a long stretch in prison.

Manach

FYI, St. Augustine, the name that comes immediately to mind.

neuro-praxis

Hi Phil_321. Why here on boards.ie we have a number of later-in-life-converts. Me, JustHalf, Excelsior, Pooka, PuckSprite, Seaneh and mmcgaley, to name but a few of us.

And Phil, I really must ask, what does "doth" mean?

Excelsior

gazza22 wrote:

I would appreciate that if you took the time to view this, that you would also take the time to post, please understand this is not just for JustHalf but intended as a general discussion, thanks!.

I am taking the time to respond. I would appreciate it if you read my response fairly and tried to answer some of the questions I pose to you (as well as offering feedback on the answers I have to give).

gazza22 wrote:

alot of the incidents in the bible are in a sense ridiculous

I think you have chosen a pretty good word there actually. Read Acts 8 and you will see a story involving the Ethiopian Minister for Finance that is plainly crazy. So crazy in fact, that asking serious questions about whether or not that would be fabricated in that way need to be asked.

gazza22 wrote:

they are not always meant to be taken literally but were used to show the greatness of their subject, exaggeration in another word

This is true of some aspects of Scripture and definitely not true for other aspects. Can you tell me where specifically the Bible exaggerates to instill greatness in an event that if recounted in terms of a modern history text would seem less great? Do you really think Genesis 1 is an exaggeration? I would have thought that was very clearly a minimising of an event down to its themes and motivations at the expense of details that could ever possibly distract from that meaning.

gazza22 wrote:

The incidents in the bible are meant for lessons and messages rather than being historical documents on all accounts.

Which incidents and on what basis do you make this statement? Certainly there are sections of the Bible that are not to be taken as historical but there are lots of other sections that are intended to be written as history. What exactly is the point that you are making?

gazza22 wrote:

What if it was the greatest story ever 'sold' (T.D.C) and a work of fiction to comemorate a great man.

That is what all biblical scholars are investigating and any Christian taking their faith seriously is engaging in the very same pursuit. You seem to think this is a new idea and that it is an idea that stands on its own without elaboration.

gazza22 wrote:

It is obviously biased and suited to the beliefs of the people who wrote it

How is that obvious? Reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus and then with the prevalent culture of the day in the Meditteranean and you will soon see that there is nothing comforting about the ideas that drove the early Church. With all the respect in the world gazza, I carefully suggest that this sentence is in fact the biased one since there was certainly no comforting familiarity to the Jewish Peter or to the Pharisee Paul when they were respectively told that kosher laws no longer applied and that in Christ there was no difference between Gentile and Jew- in effect that the Holiness code upon which they had in a very large sense built their world-view was no fulfilled and no longer in practice.

gazza22 wrote:

...they were obviously not going to write any negative comments

In Acts 15 you can read how Paul had a fight with Barnabas over John Mark and JM, who went on to write one of the Gospels and Barnabas went on their seperate ways leaving Paul alone.

Now Paul was the main evangelist of this early stage of the church. How easy would it be to paint over this little incident which depending on the reading of it looks either like a serious failure of character judgement or a full blown stubborn tantrum on behalf of the superstar of the church? This is not the only place where division between the apostles was left in the text even though the apostles look bad out of it and as the leaders of the church could have easily orchestrated a more favourable edit.

One of the major credibility claims of the New Testament is that it is littered with references to the unfavourable opinions and selfish behaviour of the leaders of the church.

gazza22 wrote:

who knows maybe the people with the other side of the story were all killed of by the church of the time.

Maybe. But lots of the New Testament letters are actually addressed to churches engaged in debate with other perspectives and world-views where the apostles and the early followers argue for a Christ-centred church. 1 John is a perfect example of a letter whose purpose is to challenge the Gnostic interpretation of Jesus. Rather than stifling other views (nevermind murdering), the early church have left the oppossing views live on long after their adherents have died off by having the discipline not to edit the Scriptures so as to clear the traces off the early church.

I say maybe to your claim because we cannot disprove that no one was murdered. But there is no evidence anywhere to suggest this is what happened and so we don't entertain the thought.

gazza22 wrote:

I will stop here because i have little faith and will probably not get far on this forum.

As much as I can in terms of the time it takes to write these answers and as far as my knowledge runs, I will answer your criticisms and claims. This is the forum to bring up these issues. It is important for the Christians here to be challenged to think about why they believe what they believe.

gazza22 wrote:

How do these really compete with science:
-The Resurrection
-The Virgin Birth
-Creation

Firstly, they aren't set out to compete with science. While there are some very staunch creation scientists here on these boards (who I respectfully disagree with) there are plenty more Christians who see no contradiction between believing in the claims for Christ made throughout the Bible and the fact of evolution and the theory of natural selection as represented by modern evolution theory.

Onto your points.
1. Resurrection.
This does not "compete" with science. This is a historic claim of the Bible and Christianity and I would argue, with support from Paul himself that if this did not actually physically happen, then we are wasting our time, "if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith is in vain."

Assumptions aside, there is nothing ridiculous in this claim.

2. The Virgin Birth
Again, this does not compete with science. There is no scientific difficulty with the belief that God spent nine months in the womb of a teenaged Palestinian Jew. It might sound ridiculous, to use your own phrasology but there science has very little to say to the issue of whether a Creator God could do this.

3. Creation
In the massive majority, Christianity believes (and has always believed) that the first two chapters of Genesis are poetry. That makes them no less true, by the way. It just makes them not science. A scientific account in 900BC would have been fairly meaningless, seeing as it was about 2,500 years until Newton came on the scene to mark the beginning of science as we now understand the term.

Science, therefore, in no way "competes" with or defeats Christianity.

gazza22 wrote:

Oh and about these whole appearances, what have all the spirits gone on vacation now?

I could put you in touch with lots of people, pagan and Christian, 1st world and 3rd world, who would feel confident that they could quickly disabuse you of the assumption laden in this point that matter is all that matters.

gazza22 wrote:

Oh and what's the deal with judgement day LOL, this is a real beauty, can god not just let us keep the f*cking planet forever? Noooooo it has to be destroyed, another scare tactic if you ask me, although i would be surprised if many belive this anyway.

This is a whole new thread but I think the vast majority of Christians would hold to a Judgement Day. It would be hard to believe the account of the Bible and yet discard this concept.

gazza22 wrote:

I just think that the only reason religion is managing to stay alive in modern times is because parents are brainwashing their children into believing in god from a ridiculously young age.

Does that explain the rate of growth in Africa where conversion currently stands at 4 times the rate of population growth? Does that explain the increasing abandonment of the Roman Catholic church in Ireland by children who have been educated exclusively in "indoctrinating" education systems? Does that explain the massive growth in evangelical denominations in Republic of Ireland in the last 13 years (Methodists growing at 6.6% and Presbyterians at 4.1% per annum) where this growth is in a very large part due to the conversion of adults from agnosticism? Finally, how do you explain me, who became a Christian at the age of 17? I think purely on the basis of evidence, you are wrong. If you can back up these arguments, I will happily take that statement (which I don't mean offensively) back. I disagree with you here.

Excelsior

gazza22 wrote:

Do you really think that religion would survive if lets say it was illegal to press religion on people until they were older and able to make an informed decision ???

You say not a chance. This is just what happened in the Soviet Union. Yet the church in the former CCCP grew massively once the Iron Curtain tumbled and that growth in because public supression could not kill private dedication to Christianity. I suspect if you looked into it, history would not be kind to your thesis.

Christianity is outlawed in China today. But even the most conservative of estimates would say that there are currently 40 million Chinese people who have been converted and who practice underground for fear of persecution from the government. Christianity grows best when people actually have to think about whether it is true or not and not simply discard it as archaic or accept it as a useful tradition as it is here in Ireland.

gazza22 wrote:

Anyway, i give Christianity a 100 years of life max

So many people have said this so many times down through the centuries. I give Christianity until the end, minimum.

gazza22 wrote:

Wouldn't the world be so much better without religion? There would have been no wars over religion

Out of interest and in the spirit of honest debate, can you tell me of a war that was actually fought over Christianity? I don't mean in a primary school understanding of history but a major conflict that happened because of Christianity.
This is an argument I used happily as an atheist but I was challenged once to rigourously back it up and I doubt that such a claim can be reinforced.

gazza22 wrote:

i would go on for hours

Maybe you should. Make a list of your problems, back them up with your reasons and see us Christians squirm as we flee to our bookcases in an effort to explain ourselves.

gazza22 wrote:

I am sorry this is cruel, but i look forward to the day (it could possibly be in the near future) that religion is found out to be what it really is, a big waste of time. It will maybe occur around the same time that smokers realise that smoking really is a waste of time too.

That is the first time I have ever seen anyone allude to Christianity as an addiction. Nicotine addiction and the worship of the Wonderful Counsellor are actually not at all similar.

phil wrote:

I think that in it's final years it'll be viewed as a kind of cult that only the very naive and weak cling to

Why do you think only the weak "cling" to Christianity? I am not offended but I am fascinated by this idea that I my intellectual immune system is damaged and that is why I have dedicated my life to Christianity.

phil wrote:

I've never heard of anyone becoming a Chrisian later in life other than reformed alcoholics and guys doing a long stretch in prison.

Both the moderators of this forum (me and Pooka) were adults as we became Christians. JustHalf is the same, as in Neuro and a couple more of the prominent Boards.ie "biblebashers".

As far as the East German model that Robin thinks might finally free us from the damaging meme that surrounds that carpenter from Nazareth, a more confident man than myself might have a concise word for policies like this:

Robindch wrote:

made it dangerous for anybody to attend religious gatherings

Persecution.

Freedom of thought and freedom of expression are surely more valuable than your assertion that Christianity is damaging? Also, although Robin gives us an anecdote, Christianity survived just fine in East Germany. My intern this year is a student from Bremen University who has a whole extended family in Dresden who became Christians during the 70's.

Anecdote against anecdote! Who will win in this battle of internet bulletin board shenanigans?!?

Playboy

2 Things:

1. There are state run Christian Churches in China.

2. The Crusades were a number of Wars that was caused by Christianity.

Manach

Playboy -
1 - The Communist Regime does not care much for the competion. There is an offical "Patriot" Catholic Church which accepts Catholic teachings but the government choses its Bishops and Cardinals. The underground Catholic church (in communion with Rome) is presectuted and its clegy arrested.

2 - To properly understand the Milieu of the Crusades, you would need to study the decline of the Eastern Roman Empire, the Arab Jihads to spread their faith and the rise of the Turkish Empire.
In essence: The Crusades were called in support of the Byzntine Empire to retake lands formally under their rule.
A book even-handed book on this subject would be "The Cross and the Crescent" by the late Richard Fletcher.

Excelsior

Playboy, Manach has more than answered your points but if I can use your suggestion as a jumping off point for finalising mine:

Although obviously Christians (even practicing Christians, even clergy) were a massive drive behind the Crusades, did Christianity cause them? A deep look at the history will show you that they didn't but that there were far more secular desires at the heart of the war-mongerers.

Where Christianity is said to have started wars, I have yet to find a case where in fact Christianity is just abused as a rallying cry around which cynical people gather followers for their conflict. The behaviour of men and women claiming to be acting in a Christian manner and the actual body of thought, writing and practice that is actually Christianity are two very seperate (and not even neccessarily connected) things.

Playboy

Pope Urban II started the crusades and I have read a number of books on it. Whatever way you want to look at it the leader of the cathlolic church started a war in order to reclaim the Holy Land. People were offered indulgences by the Pope in order to go out there. How can you tell me that it wasnt a christian war? If you want to we can go into the subject in more detail and start talking about the atrocities that the christians commited out there. The financial motivations of the different people out there is a side issue.

Excelsior made a point that christianity was outlawed in China. I just made a point that it isnt. I never mentioned anything about the Roman Catholic Church.

Excelsior

Christianity is outlawed in China. You cannot meet publicly and you cannot evangelise. Bibles are contraband and prison time will be served if you are caught with children's resources. The mere citation of a state church that claims to be Catholic and yet is rejected by Rome is clear evidence that Christianity proper is not permitted in China. And yet conversion happens, even without the support structures Robin talks about.

Urban II in your own words offered indulgences to fight. That is not Christian. Indulgences are not part of Christianity but were a symptom of the apostasy of the Roman church in that period that eventually ended with Luther, Calvin, Zwingli et al and their reforming influence.

The reclaiming of the Holy Land was a political issue, motivated by money and not a theological issue. I am not trying in anyway to absolve Christians from the very great sins and atrocities they have committed and will continue to commit. I am rather arguing the point that Christianity leads to war.

Yet, the teachings of Christianity and the practices based on it have not led to war. Christians, who are humans, have fought wars where they used (and continue to use) Christianity as a rallying point behind which they can hide their greed or hatred. But objectively, no where in the Bible can you find a support structure for the Crusades and the support offered was merely Christian in lip service to their real god which was money and power.

So, my point, to clarify it is:
Christians and non-Christians have historically hidden behind the name Jesus while they commit atrocities for their own ends but that is in no way supported by or related to the teachings of Christ which are not war-mongering and I don't think have ever caused a war.

Playboy

Im sorry but a state catholic church whatever way you want to look at it is a form of christianity that legally exists in China.

I never said that the bible incited people to make war. I think the point that was been made earlier is that organised religion leads to war. The crusades was a war that was started by the leader of the christian world therefore I would class it as a christian war. Christians fought and killed for their religion .. they wanted to reclaim the holy land and gain a free pass into heaven. It doesnt matter if the teachings of the church at the time were misinterpreted and abused. The fact is that religion is always misinterpreted and abused and used as an excuse and a tool to wage war ... whether it is ethnic cleansing in serbia or a crusade in the middle ages, the point is that it gets people killed.

neuro-praxis

So what is your conclusion, Playboy? That "organised religion" should be avoided at all costs, because there have been those in history who have abused it?

The point that Excelsior is making (and rather eloquently too) is that the actions of the purported followers of any philosophy or belief system are not necessarily connected to the actual belief system itself.

Christianity can be summed up as "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind, and love your neighbour as yourself." Actually obeying this will never lead to unjustified war and destruction. Those who led the crusades actively disobeyed God.

You are ignoring the worthiness of a relationship with God because many, many Christians are morons. This is not a sufficient reason to reject Christianity.

You might as well refuse to drive a car because of the thousands of people that are killed by them each year.

Puck

I agree with neuro.

Christianity can be summed up as "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind, and love your neighbour as yourself."

If you look at this as a rule for living then it's possible to look at it like this: just because people that claim to be following the rules are wrong, it doesn't mean that the rule itself is.

For example, a sign in a swimming pool might say something like "No diving in the shallow end!". Now if some idiots come along and dive head first into the shallow end then it's not the rule's fault. The rule is still a very good rule and you won't solve any problems by taking down the sign. The rule isn't wrong or stupid, those people going around with the mushed in faces are.

Memnoch

the problem in this case is that the swimming pool seems to be used more often to drown other people (unless they give the owner of the pool their money)than to teach people how to swim.

Zombrex

neuro-praxis wrote:

So what is your conclusion, Playboy? That "organised religion" should be avoided at all costs, because there have been those in history who have abused it?

I think the point Playboy is making is that faith, especially blind faith, in the structure and leaders of the organised religions of this world has lead to countless wars and the oppression and deaths of millions of people over the last 4000 or so years.

It is all very well to say that when a Pope rallies people to kill it is not infact part of the teachings of the church, but what is the "teaching" of the church except an interpretation of the texts, documents and collective history of that church, often by appointed leaders of the church. You say that Christianity does not justify wars. It is very easy for someone to look at the text and documents of christianity and come to the conclusion that actually it does, and then use this as a justification for war.

And if, as in religions such a Christianity and Islam, such faith is put in the wisdom of religious leaders (the Pope, local clerics, priests, the Iadola (sp?)) it is far too easy for these leaders to manipulate the populous because the organised religion requires that one follow their teachings

neuro-praxis wrote:

The point that Excelsior is making (and rather eloquently too) is that the actions of the purported followers of any philosophy or belief system are not necessarily connected to the actual belief system itself.

But the "actual belief system" is just an interpretation of the documents and text of the religion, often by a religion leader. For example Catholic belief is really just an interprestation of the writings and philosophy of the early Christians, which in turn were an interpretation of what Jesus was supposed to have said.

I am all for personal interpretations of things, I believe that religion should be a personal thing. The problem comes from organised religion interpreting the belief system for the general population. Because then the power of faith is handed to a few leaders, with no safe-guards that they are actual not going to use that power to start wars and kill people.

None of us know what Jesus was actually saying. The entire Christian religion is based on someone elses interpretation of this, and interpretation that has been re-interpretated over and over by other people for the last 2000 years. Can you not see the power, and danger, in a system like that?

Excelsior

I can see the power and danger in that Wicknight. I would agree that organised religion has a very sensitive tipping point at which it can be manipulated for a great deal of evil. But even on this old nugget of "organised religion is evil", the truth is a great deal more subtle.

My example, if you let me away with bringing WWII into an internet debate is NAZIism. The NAZIs appropriated some elements of Christian ritual and some elements from all over the rest of the world's culture to create an all encompassing cult for adoration. Whereas organised religion places worship of a God/gods/force at the centre of someone's life, NAZIism placed a political ideal at the centre of their whole life. It even had an avatar in the form of Hitler. Organised religion is a big problem but the religion part is not actually the underlying part of the problem, but rather just a symptom of the bigger malaise.

That root cause isn't religion but people. Individually, people can be very bad. When they are organised together and let their greed, pride and selfishness run, they are astonishingly bad. It isn't the religion, but the organisation bit that leads to the destructive power.

That is all a bit of a digression but hopefully one that can spark some thoughts.

Wicknight wrote:

None of us know what Jesus was actually saying

Actually we do. The record of Jesus' words are left in the most authoritative ancient text we have- the New Testament.

Even if you doubt the validity of the New Testament, there is no other record of Jesus with historical value. Even if you are highly skeptical of the Gospel accounts, they are clear markers by which someone can be judged to be behaving in line with the Christian ideals. Christianity over the last 2000 years has had lots of debates and dialogues within itself and without itself but there is a clear body of ideas that firmly represent the primary beliefs of historical Christianity from the first decades after Christ's resurrection right through to today.

If the question, what is a Christian was so vague and ambiguous as your nihilism suggests, then I wonder how all these organised Christian churches got up off the ground. I am not just talking about the globe-spanning denominations but even the local congregations that have existed throughout Ireland, typically for at least 500 years.

Also, were the actions of the Christian leaders in Serbia's genocide of Bosnia actually defensible within the text or the tradition seperate from the context of nationalistic frenzy that Serbian Christians found themselves in you would find two things:
1) Christians from outside the Balkans would support them during the war. This never happened.
2) There would be some debate about the righteousness of the actions of the Serbians in the aftermath of the war. Yet this has not happened.

The reason why no one rushed to their aid and the reason why everyone, including Serbian Christians refuses to defend the actions committed "in Christ's name" during those years in the 90's is because they are utterly anathaema to the teachings of Christ and cannot be defended. They existed not because the religion was evil but because the people were evil and in evil twisted the religion to suit their needs, which only worked because of the frenzied bloodlusting nationalism that was sweeping all of that society.

I am not simply offering my opinion here. I am daring to make the bold claim that throughout history, the wars that have been said to be Christian are in fact unsupportable by Christianity. (As an aside- they therefore back up the Biblical claim that all people sin )

I am right behind Playboy and Wicknight and anyone else who wants to challenge the blindly faithful. But the 20th Century shows us that you do not have to be a Christian to have a blind faith that leads to murder. My plea, as I go all John Grisham court-room finale on you, is that you would seriously consider your own opinions and back them up with credible assertions or discard them as no longer useful. It is only by being intellectually honest that any of us can move closer to the truth.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

That root cause isn't religion but people. Individually, people can be very bad. When they are organised together and let their greed, pride and selfishness run, they are astonishingly bad. It isn't the religion, but the organisation bit that leads to the destructive power.

But it is the religion that allows for it to happen. It is the belief in the religion that means people follow the Pope, even if he is a blood thursty warmonger. Can a catholic still be a catholic if they denounce the Pope? What is then their religion if isn't defined by other people.

You say religion isn't the problem, but the people in the religion that can corrupt it. But what is western religion if not the following of what other people say. I am not religious and I am an atheist. All I see when I look at religious groups is the people that make them up. It is like saying Ireland isn't the problem, it is the people in Ireland.

Western religion is defined by the idea that the many should follow the teachings of the few, mostly without question The few can be your local priest or people who wrote the Bible. This is the core of the religions and this is the part I have a problem with.

People turn to priests, Popes, evangalists, sect leaders etc for guidence of how to follow the religion. Even the prophets, saints etc are just other people, other people that the religion instructs that one must follow.

I would have no problem with western religion if it was like some forms of eastern religion, purely a personal spiritual experience based on inner study and philosphy. But western religion isn't like that. Western religion is, almost entirely, defined by following what others have taught.

Excelsior wrote:

Actually we do. The record of Jesus' words are left in the most authoritative ancient text we have- the New Testament.

The books of the New Testament were written at the earliest 50 years after Christ died, and at the latest 150 years after he died. The have also been changed and manipulated by Popes and Kings up through the ages.

For example, it does not actually say in the Bible that Mary was a virgin. This is a mistranslation that appeared in versions about 150 years after Christ died. Yet this is one of the corner stones of the Catholic religion.

Excelsior wrote:

Christianity over the last 2000 years has had lots of debates and dialogues within itself and without itself but there is a clear body of ideas that firmly represent the primary beliefs of historical Christianity from the first decades after Christ's resurrection right through to today.

True, such as forgiveness and tolerance. Like I said I have no problem with inner study and philosphy. If someone leads there life by these ideals that is great. I presonally don't think someone has to be religious to do so.

My problem is that these ideals are not what western religion is primarilarly about. If they were we would have no churches, no Pope, no Mecca. Western religion is not about personal reflection and leading a good life. It is about teaching others to do so as well. And that is where we run into problems, because what is actually taught, and the people who teach this, are more often than not, not actually teaching forgiveness and tolerance at all.

Western religion is defined by the rules, taught by some to many, that one must follow to be a correct follower of the religion. And it is with-in the teaching of these rules that the problems of western religion appear. It is within the teaching that the hypocracy, corruption suffering and war appear.

That is my problem with western religion, not the ideals that are supposed to be behind them, but the idea that these ideals must be taught and then followed to the population.

Hooky

Of course, it doesn't just happen from parents -- see this post and this one from the public forum for the 'victory outreach dublin' outfit which 'General Valdez' posted a few days ago. In case the messages disappear, a poster named 'stewey' posted about the efforts of the church to grab schoolkids on their way home from school:

] It's official every monday at 4o'clock were hitting the streets we
] gonna start impacting the local areas shining light into the darkness

then, the worrying:

] Thats what we t6rying to do catch the youth coming from school

(aren't there laws against people doing this?)

] Could yiz please keep our evangelism in prayer we were out
] today and the youth are hard to reach sometimes they dont
] listen. We had to climb fences and thde kids abused some of
] us. Robbie got a smack of a ball in the face.

Oh, well.

I dont even know who you are but let me break it down for you, you sick person. The reason we go out and speak to young people is this:
There are far to many young kids taking drugs and drinking and they are getting sucked in by the wrong crowd, i myself was a victim of drugs and voilence and all them otherthings that go with it, i wish someone would have came to my school and told me about GOD instead of some drug dealer telling me about the DEVIL so unless you understand i suggest you keep your opinions to yourself
Signed
STEWY a firm believer in CHRIST

robindch

> let me break it down for you, you sick person. [...] unless
> you understand i suggest you keep your opinions to yourself

I don't think there's any cause to start name-calling. FYI, I worked, part-time, for five years in a well-known Dublin homeless shelter and have probably have as good an understanding of the hideous, and fatal, effects of drug-taking, as any non-drug user can hope to have.

However, I find it distasteful to see a religious organization apparently attempting to take advantage of vulnerable people. If the organization were sincerely interested in propagating the anti-drugs message, or getting people off drugs, then that's what it should concentrate and drop the religious stuff. And drop the hanging around schools, trying to "catch" kids (which I find unsettling).