Attack on Christianity? and other concepts I have a problem with.

[UBERDOINK]

why can't something you don't understand, be something you don't believe in?

that sentence actually will make sense if you read it twice, in the dark and backwards.

 

[CapnG]

why can't something you don't understand, be something you don't believe in?

Technically? Because I have to understand something (at least on a conceptual level) before I can decide whether or not I believe in it.

 

[inuk2600]

why can't something you don't understand, be something you don't believe in?

I think you blew it on the triple-negative bro. I read it twice like you suggested and I still don't like it.

Maybe I'm just retarded, but I think I aren't.

Let me rephrase it in a another way...

"You don't believe in something you don't understand. Why not?"

Three possible answers:

1. Because I would have to believe in things that I don't understand. (result from flipping first negative)

2. Because I would have to not believe in things I understand. (result from flipping second negative)

3. Because I would have to believe in things I understand. (result from flipping both negatives)


2 and 3 get shit-canned immediately, that leaves number 1, in which case I'll just concur with CapnG although an essay length response would be needed to properly explore this loaded mother.

 

[UBERDOINK]

I guess what I really mean is, just because we don't believe in it, or just because we can't under stand it, doesn't mean it's not the truth.

I know you'll say, "then fairies and dancing dinosaurs could be real!" but again, my point is, not just any idea could be real, but if there is tons of data, research and thousands of years of thought behind something, I think it's credibility is a high probability, regardless of our personal viewpoints.

Does that make more sense? I'm trying :redface:

 

[CapnG]

Does that make more sense? I'm trying :redface:

Better but still iffy. The fact that something could possibly exist in no way connects to the probability of it's existence. Fairies for instance could exist but I really, really doubt it.

 

[rwahrens]

I guess what I really mean is, just because we don't believe in it, or just because we can't under stand it, doesn't mean it's not the truth.

I know you'll say, "then fairies and dancing dinosaurs could be real!" but again, my point is, not just any idea could be real, but if there is tons of data, research and thousands of years of thought behind something, I think it's credibility is a high probability, regardless of our personal viewpoints.

Does that make more sense? I'm trying :redface:

...but if there is tons of data, research and thousands of years of thought behind something, I think it's credibility is a high probability, regardless of our personal viewpoints.

IF you are talking about religious views here, read on, if not, I apologize. (and not to hijack the thread)

But where are the tons of data? How can one "research" the unprovable? I am sure that the Roman and Greek worlds had a couple of thousand years of thought behind their gods, too, but did that mean their gods were real? If you say thought proves the christian god is real, why then, you MUST admit that the Greek and Roman gods are too.

Most religions are based, in reality, on sacred texts written generally, thousands if not, hundreds of years ago. (apologies to the LDS) A majority of them, to my knowledge, do not have the original texts, and depend upon modern translations of multiple-generation copies, sometimes translations from ancient languages themselves, which may or may not resemble, in either particular or in general, the original thought behind that original.

So, again, where is the PROOF? The preacher that stands up in the pulpit on Sunday (or the rabbi on Saturday or the cleric on Friday) has little more knowledge than you do about that document, although some small percentage are probably learned in those ancient languages, and thus do know a bit more. He is getting his knowledge from the same source you are - your religion's sacred text. (If he knows that language, he may be better versed in its nuances than you are, but that is all.)

There really isn't any other source of information. Everything else is "educated" guesswork by men (and nowadays, women) that have studied the thoughts and guesses of generations of other peoples' guesses about what it all may be about.

NONE of them KNOW.

 

[Jeff Crowell]

There really isn't any other source of information. Everything else is "educated" guesswork by men (and nowadays, women) that have studied the thoughts and guesses of generations of other peoples' guesses about what it all may be about.

NONE of them KNOW.

I completely agree with this. This is where the faith aspect comes in. We have <i>faith</i> that the entity we believe to be God will guide us down the correct path of beleif, that He will give us the proper texts and scriptures, that the meat-and-potatoes of our belief system somehow survived the time and translations throughout the course of history so that I'm believing in the same things and living the same ways people of my belief did thousands of years ago. That's faith.

Also, in retrospect, I think I mis-labeled this post. I was wrong to do it the way I did it and I apologize. The things being stated in this post can be said for all religions, not just Christianity. In the end, maybe every religion out there could use a healthy dose of respect, tolerance, and understanding for all other peoples in the world.

Wow, maybe I should right speeches for the Ms. America pagent!

 

[David Biedny]

Wow, maybe I should right speeches for the Ms. America pagent!

Yeah, "righting" speeches might be "write" up your alley. Or not.

dB

 

[rwahrens]

We have faith that the entity we believe to be God will guide us ...

Uh, faith is another word for gullibility. That's another way of saying you believe someone that cannot prove what they say, yet you give over your fortune, good name etc., to the bling.

The only difference between the victim of a human con man and you is that the "source" of your belief is one step removed from you compared to a human con man.

 

[UBERDOINK]

I think we can't discount the difference between thousands of years of documents that has withstood the critiques of time, and great thinkers to reach our modern age, as opposed to Roman gods like Apollo or Zeus, or Egyptian gods like Anubis etc. that have died out based on deeper cultural understanding of the world.

Christianity for example has withstood the test of time and is able to be understood and referenced by a 21st century, thinking person as easily as it was by a 1st century person.

I cannot justify the need to sacrifice humans to BAAL but can apply the tenets of Christianity to my daily life.

Don't you think that in itself makes a difference? and if knowledge like that can stand thousands of years, there may be other parts of our world it can help us understand, even possibly, UFOs?

 

[CapnG]

I think we can't discount the difference between thousands of years of documents that has withstood the critiques of time, and great thinkers to reach our modern age, as opposed to Roman gods like Apollo or Zeus, or Egyptian gods like Anubis etc. that have died out based on deeper cultural understanding of the world.

The egyptians worshipped Ra in one form or another for nearly 3000 years. Plus if you take the time to actually read up on the day-to-day stuff regarding ancient gods and their worship you'll find it's all pretty much the same as christianity. Your mentioning of the Romans is particularily amusing, since the Catholic church is essentially a re-branding of ancient Roman mythologies with saints standing in for gods in the old pantheon (Venus > Mary, Apollo > Jesus, Zeus > Jehova, Hades > Satan, etc).

As for sacraficing to BAAL, lemme ask you this: have you ever been to church? Ever put money in the collection plate or payed a tithe? Same thing. You give up something you need to gain the god's favour. If Baal worship had survived, I'm sure the modern day Church of Baal would be an upstanding and charitable institution with all it's rituals played down to mere theatrics.

 

[UBERDOINK]

the Catholic church is essentially a re-branding of ancient Roman mythologies with saints standing in for gods in the old pantheon (Venus > Mary, Apollo > Jesus, Zeus > Jehova, Hades > Satan, etc).

Well, if you take a non Dan Brown, pulp version of history account of the Catholics re-branding, you will see that the supplanting of ancient gods is more accurate. They didn't say take the practices surrounding Zeus and Zeus's story and they say, he we meant Jesus. If you really follow historians account of the rise of the "holy roman empire" it was, I agree a power play, but it was a substitutionary power play, not an assimilating one.

How long the Egyptians worshiped Ra isn't relevant to my point, it hasn't continued into the modern age, because it's fundamental tenets cannot be supported in a more reasoned era. Where as, if you walk around your town or neighborhood, Christian churches still abound.

Now do you really associate tithing with human sacrifice? interesting take on the issue. Although when tax time rolls around I do feel the government's taxes are equal to human sacrifice ;-)

 

[rwahrens]

I think we can't discount the difference between thousands of years of documents that has withstood the critiques of time, and great thinkers to reach our modern age, as opposed to Roman gods like Apollo or Zeus, or Egyptian gods like Anubis etc. that have died out based on deeper cultural understanding of the world.

Christianity for example has withstood the test of time and is able to be understood and referenced by a 21st century, thinking person as easily as it was by a 1st century person.

I cannot justify the need to sacrifice humans to BAAL but can apply the tenets of Christianity to my daily life.

Don't you think that in itself makes a difference? and if knowledge like that can stand thousands of years, there may be other parts of our world it can help us understand, even possibly, UFOs?

The "great thinkers" you refer to reached our modern age because the Vatican protected them! ...and the Roman/Greek gods' worship died out because the RCC ruthlessly stamped it out.

Christianity has not withstood the test of time in nearly the way you assert. It "withstood" that test because for a majority of that time, it protected itself through force of arms! Hard to disagree with a philosophy when doing so might get you burned at the stake!

 

[rwahrens]

If you really follow historians account of the rise of the "holy roman empire" it was, I agree a power play, but it was a substitutionary power play, not an assimilating one.

Yeah, christianity supplanted pagan worship by destroying it completely. Temples, priests, literature, everything. From 600 CE on, it was the death penalty to worship the old gods. That sure isn't assimilation, you are right about that!

Holidays were changed into christian holidays, temples were razed to the ground and churches built in their places, priests were dragged from temples and killed.

No, that is definitely substitutionary!

 

[UBERDOINK]

The "great thinkers" you refer to reached our modern age because the Vatican protected them!

Again, without knowing your history you are plain our, catagorically wrong and totally without foundation.

Through time, Christianity, not Catholicism which are two very different things has been persecuted, and the powers that be have tried over and over again to stamp it out.

If understand the motivations behind Martin Luther, and why the Protestant church even exists is proof in itself for the struggle of Christianity to survive apart from Catholicism.

Even within Rome itself, Constantine tired over the constant wars being fought to keep down the "Christians" by the "Catholics" (easiest way to explain the difference)

I think, if you really want to understand what you believe you should at least try and understand the truth about history.

 

[Schuyler]

Yeah, christianity supplanted pagan worship by destroying it completely. Temples, priests, literature, everything. From 600 CE on, it was the death penalty to worship the old gods. That sure isn't assimilation, you are right about that!

Not only that, they also destroyed any other Christian sects, specifically the Gnostics, who believed religious power and faith was to be had through personal and direct experience--instead of via the established church structure. Well, the Church couldn't have THAT, so they destroyed anyone or any text that mentioned it. I believe it wasn't until the 14th century, or perhaps even later, that anyone other than a priest was allowed to read the Bible. It hgradually changed to only titled men ould read it, then only the head of the household. It ws much later that women we allowed to read (Gasp) the Bible.

Then there's that pesky Gospel of Thomas where Jesus repeatedly irked the other disciples by kissing Mary Magdalene 'on the mouth,' making Peter very jealous.

 

[UBERDOINK]

Not only that, they also destroyed any other Christian sects, specifically the Gnostics, who believed religious power and faith was to be had through personal and direct experience--instead of via the established church structure.

Again, the Catholics did a lot of persecution I agree, Christian's did not.

Also your comments on who could read the bible have nothing to do with Christianity and all to do with cultural norms at the time.

Wow, you mean women couldn't vote! that means Christianity is bad? Explain that logic again?

 

[Schuyler]

I think, if you really want to understand what you believe you should at least try and understand the truth about history.

Sorry, but though I agree with you on the taxes bit, I'm not seeing that you are exhibiting any particularly insightful knowledge about history, including Christian history. You're acting as if you do, but what you are saying about chuch history is sophomoric at best. I mean that in the technical sense of 'wise fool'--kind of like the guy who takes Psychology 101 and proceeds to psychoanalyze everyone's deep seated phobias with an air of educated superiority.

 

[rwahrens]

Again, without knowing your history you are plain our, catagorically wrong and totally without foundation.

Through time, Christianity, not Catholicism which are two very different things has been persecuted, and the powers that be have tried over and over again to stamp it out.

If understand the motivations behind Martin Luther, and why the Protestant church even exists is proof in itself for the struggle of Christianity to survive apart from Catholicism.

Even within Rome itself, Constantine tired over the constant wars being fought to keep down the "Christians" by the "Catholics" (easiest way to explain the difference)

I think, if you really want to understand what you believe you should at least try and understand the truth about history.

I don't know what dimension YOU come from, but in THIS one, Constantine made christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, and established the Roman Catholic church, which destroyed the old pagan religions by about 600 CE. It then held total sway over Western civilization until the rise of Lutheranism, or the Protestant Reformation, which established the Evangaelish church in Germany, igniting the Thirty Years War.

As such, the Vatican has definitely protected itself and its documents where they exist.

As for a "struggle", the only struggle it had was to supplant an existing religion by ruthlessly stamping it out using the full might and power of the Roman Empire!

Perhaps you should go back to school. History doesn't seem your strong suit.

 

[CapnG]

Well, if you take a non Dan Brown, pulp version of history account of the Catholics re-branding, you will see that the supplanting of ancient gods is more accurate. They didn't say take the practices surrounding Zeus and Zeus's story and they say, he we meant Jesus. If you really follow historians account of the rise of the "holy roman empire" it was, I agree a power play, but it was a substitutionary power play, not an assimilating one.

Others have come to the same conclusion before Dan Brown, with better research than Dan Brown. Dan Brown can go hang for all I care, I've never even read his books and am somewhat miffed at the implication. As for the difference between assimilation and substitution, in this case I'd say it's paper thin. Christianity has wrapped itself in the trappings of other religions to make itself more palatable to the locals many times.

How long the Egyptians worshiped Ra isn't relevant to my point, it hasn't continued into the modern age, because it's fundamental tenets cannot be supported in a more reasoned era. Where as, if you walk around your town or neighborhood, Christian churches still abound.

Not relevant? Isn't this you?

I think we can't discount the difference between thousands of years of documents that has withstood the critiques of time, and great thinkers to reach our modern age, as opposed to Roman gods like Apollo or Zeus, or Egyptian gods like Anubis etc. that have died out based on deeper cultural understanding of the world.

Sure sounds like an attempt to correlate time worshipped and value of teachings to me. And besides which, we're still TALKING about the Egyptians, the Greeks/Romans and their temples still stand (not to mention just about every official building of significance is based on their architecture) so in every appreciable, physical sense their cultures and religions survive, they simply aren't practised anymore.

Now do you really associate tithing with human sacrifice? interesting take on the issue. Although when tax time rolls around I do feel the government's taxes are equal to human sacrifice ;-)

Not just me, a good chunk of historians and theologans would back me up on this. What do you think communion is? Bread=body, wine=blood, supplanting the previous rites of animal and human sacrafice through symbolic representation (Christ is "lamb of God" after all). Tithing IS sacrafice.