By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Why Christianity is Fundamentally Flawed

Player1x3 on 29 December 2012
naimisharanya said:
Player1x3 said:

Wow, you're really insanely obsessed with Christianity, aren't you? You talk about it waay more than any christian person here does.

You need to get out of your head the idea that we aren't some monkeys in a circus or puppets that are being controlled by the environment. You need to realize that people ARE ABLE to to make their own mind and create their own personalities DESPITE their environment and circumstances. Humans aren't the shallow, naive and weak pussies as you make them to be. They don't necessarily bow to the situation they find themselves in, spread their ass cheeks and say ''well, it's not my fault i turned out like this'. Some people are actually able to take credit and responsibility for their actions and say ' i did/caused this myself, and i made this out of myself BECAUSE of myself'. Now, of course, you ACTUALLY being the type of people you describe in your threads, you can't possibly understand that concept, because you've probably been taught to think like that by your society. (aka Sweden, where everybody pretends everybody is super nice and good, and the minute something goes wrong, you start blaming the environment, childhood, family and other bullshit aspects, because you know, the individual can't possibly have any responsibility)

You use the same arguments to defend convicts as well (rapists, murderers, thieves etc), the good old ''they were influenced by the events in their lives, so they had no control of what those events could lead them into doing'' Bullshit. You can find the examples where the kids from richest families, nicest parents and who had every tool possible for succses in the world still turned out to be complete failures and fuck ups life. And you can also find examples where people from the dirtiest slums of India managed to become successful and respected lawyers, engineers, programmers etc...

Your society, environment, and circumstances of your life do not even remotely defiy your free will. If you really want something, you're gonna get it despite the challenges you face. We can control on how we turn out to be because of the free will. We can choose not to bow to the difficulties and situations.

To specifically answer to the OP, the result 2 is the correct one. The kid entering the heaven will be unaffected by that decision. A pathway to heaven is mostly a personal struggle, traditional religious practicing isn't necessary for it. That depends of course on how you define that. If you say following the specific morals of a religion, i'd probably agree with, but lots of morals aren't exclusive to one religion, so it wouldn't really matter if you pray to Krishna, Allah or Christ, as long as you practice the right morals. I believe that's how you 'get into heaven'. I believe heaven is a metaphor for peace in afterlife with God, and that can be only achieved with what i've described above IMO. So whether that God is called Krishna, Allah or Christ is irrelevant as long as you're in 'heaven'. And that's what religious practice is, IMO

While I disagree with much of what you say, I wholeheartedly agree with your reasoning process.

Moreover, I actually enjoyed reading your philosophical reasoning. This is very rare - especially on VGChartz. What makes this more intruiging is that you are a mere whipper snapper.

Have you ever considered mind expanding substances?

*Oh all of you shut up*

I'm totally serious. You sound ready for it.


Can you specify the parts you're referring to?

And what is a whipper snapper?



Around the Network
naimisharanya on 29 December 2012
whatever2383 said:

 

Result 3 - Whether the kid eventually enters heaven or hell is affected by the choices he made in his life.

This means that regardless of the "obstacles" that are put before you in life or the environment you are put in, you are still in full control of the choices you make. Yes, being in a Christian based family will be a better foundation than a Godless based family. But either way, the kid will have to develop his own personal relationship with God and bear testimony of Jesus Christ who died for our sins.

I myself, grew up in a non-church family and God, let alone Jesus, was never mentioned. As I got older, 14-15 years, my friends spoke of this, but I easily rejected it and declared myself Atheist. I then got tired of the "ignorance" in Christians and tried to use today's intelligence against a 2000 year old book. I EASILY found contradictions in the Bible and began using them against my friends. I then felt I could take on preachers. Boy, was I wrong. I got nailed. My ego was crushed and I still denied the Bible, due to my over inflated ego. Then, I read some of the simpler stuff in the Bible that I could not believe. Such as, "Ask and you shall recieve", "God puts the law in your heart", and "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart". These phrases led me to start finding the truth and quit stretching for answers that give me comfort for my own way of life, that I saw fit.  During this journey, it felt like I was on a teeter totter going back and forth in the belief of God. But, then on May 19th 1999, I was able to bear testimony that there is a God. Jesus truly came into my heart and the Spirit was there to comfort me. It was truly a once in a lifetime experience. I now understand what it means to "bear testimony" that there is a God. Just like a handfull of witnesses that can bear testimony of a crime that they saw. Nobody was there to witness it, but them. Just as I am the only one to witness God on that moment when Jesus entered into my heart. I don't expect you to understand this testimony, it's not a choice, nor psychological. It was a true event that happened to me. (and billions of other people too). If you truly want to know if there is a God, here is a good website for some atheist to start from - http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

As for me, I do not choose to believe in God, but I like to say I have a knowledge in God, due to my testimony of God. 

 

Your story is about as touching as it is unique - not very much at all.

Without proper reasoning you are not worth listening to. You see, I could wallow along about how incredible the spirit of Allah has been in enriching my life with spiritual blah blah blah

It means nothing to others.

Reason. That is man's great gift. Not feeling. Not sentiment. Save it for the old ladies.

I could tear your preachers to shreds. I guarantee it. If you think I'm bluffing then I'd do a recorded Skype conference and we can post it in a thread. I'm not being arrogant, I'm coming from years of experience.

I'm trying to toughen you up here, because if your faith is built on what I see up there, then you are like the man who built his house on the sand aren't ya.

I'll say it again; Man's greatest distincion is his ability to reason.



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 29 December 2012
naimisharanya said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
OceanJ said:
Dude you must have really enjoyed your Philosophy of Religion college course.

It doesn't matter whether we dismiss Christianity or any other religion, that's not the real issue.

The bottom line is no one knows why there's something rather than nothing. No one knows where the Singularity that caused the Big Bang that created our known Universe originated.

What's very, very, very interesting - is that we cannot imagine a state of pure nothingness.

This is the bottom line. You can dismiss any particular religion or deity, but you can't explain where time & space & singularities originate from.

Thus, the possibility for higher-beings and gods.


I have never really understood that conclusion. Just because we can't explain it that doesn't mean we should put extra focus on the higher-beings possibility. The mere thought of a higher being is the result of a human brain thinking, and so is Batman and the easter bunny.

Everything that we can think of is a possibility, and there is nothing to suggest that a higher being creating the world is more likely than anything else that we can think of. Not to mention that essentially what you'd do when trying to explain the world's creation by a god is explaining something unexplainable with an unexplainable explanation. It makes no sense.

Until the source of consciousness is localized, then I'm afraid you're mistaken. And this is due to your own (clearly) inherent adherence to the empirical method.

It is taken as a mere product of the mechanistic function of our brain's hardwiring that this singular experience of consciousness has come about. This directly implies that the same experience can be had by a programmed, virtual brain in a hypothetical computer. This proof is what you require.

If on the other hand it cannot be proven, then the postulate that consciousness is a product of an entity external (read seperate) to the body must at the very least be considered.

Since this consciousness is singular, it can discretely be summized. I.e. I have mine and you have yours. It may be postulated that:

a) These seperated consciouss entities are manifest from a primordial consciousness which has all the properties of the individual entities' consciousness, but it is expanded infinitely

The above is explained thoroughly in Vedanta. Erwin Schrodinger agrees:

"Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. If I say that there cannot be more than one consciousness in the same mind, this seems a blunt tautology — we are quite unable to imagine the contrary..."

b) There exists some primordial living entity from whom we have manifested these qualities of personhood. This is thoroughly explained in texts such as the Bhagavad Gita.

"When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous." ~ Albert Einstein

If you think these are unreasonable, then I will start arguing that you are conditioned as much as the Christians you are crusading against in the first place.


I never said that a higher being creating the universe should not be considered. Until we know or even have a clue, everything should be considered, and your post is most certainly not unreasonable.

I must admit though that my lacking English skills makes it hard for me to make out your point. Are you saying that we have scientific reasons to consider that a creator made our universe? If so, I'll not look the other way. I'm not ignorant.



naimisharanya on 29 December 2012
Player1x3 said:
naimisharanya said:
Player1x3 said:

Wow, you're really insanely obsessed with Christianity, aren't you? You talk about it waay more than any christian person here does.

You need to get out of your head the idea that we aren't some monkeys in a circus or puppets that are being controlled by the environment. You need to realize that people ARE ABLE to to make their own mind and create their own personalities DESPITE their environment and circumstances. Humans aren't the shallow, naive and weak pussies as you make them to be. They don't necessarily bow to the situation they find themselves in, spread their ass cheeks and say ''well, it's not my fault i turned out like this'. Some people are actually able to take credit and responsibility for their actions and say ' i did/caused this myself, and i made this out of myself BECAUSE of myself'. Now, of course, you ACTUALLY being the type of people you describe in your threads, you can't possibly understand that concept, because you've probably been taught to think like that by your society. (aka Sweden, where everybody pretends everybody is super nice and good, and the minute something goes wrong, you start blaming the environment, childhood, family and other bullshit aspects, because you know, the individual can't possibly have any responsibility)

You use the same arguments to defend convicts as well (rapists, murderers, thieves etc), the good old ''they were influenced by the events in their lives, so they had no control of what those events could lead them into doing'' Bullshit. You can find the examples where the kids from richest families, nicest parents and who had every tool possible for succses in the world still turned out to be complete failures and fuck ups life. And you can also find examples where people from the dirtiest slums of India managed to become successful and respected lawyers, engineers, programmers etc...

Your society, environment, and circumstances of your life do not even remotely defiy your free will. If you really want something, you're gonna get it despite the challenges you face. We can control on how we turn out to be because of the free will. We can choose not to bow to the difficulties and situations.

To specifically answer to the OP, the result 2 is the correct one. The kid entering the heaven will be unaffected by that decision. A pathway to heaven is mostly a personal struggle, traditional religious practicing isn't necessary for it. That depends of course on how you define that. If you say following the specific morals of a religion, i'd probably agree with, but lots of morals aren't exclusive to one religion, so it wouldn't really matter if you pray to Krishna, Allah or Christ, as long as you practice the right morals. I believe that's how you 'get into heaven'. I believe heaven is a metaphor for peace in afterlife with God, and that can be only achieved with what i've described above IMO. So whether that God is called Krishna, Allah or Christ is irrelevant as long as you're in 'heaven'. And that's what religious practice is, IMO

While I disagree with much of what you say, I wholeheartedly agree with your reasoning process.

Moreover, I actually enjoyed reading your philosophical reasoning. This is very rare - especially on VGChartz. What makes this more intruiging is that you are a mere whipper snapper.

Have you ever considered mind expanding substances?

*Oh all of you shut up*

I'm totally serious. You sound ready for it.


Can you specify the parts you're referring to?

And what is a whipper snapper?


Oh goodness, I thought I was quoting someone else. In that case "whipper snapper" doesn't apply. It refers to a very young person usually. I thought I quoted Andrespetmonkey for some reason - sorry.

Well, I don't agree with "I believe heaven is a metaphor for peace in afterlife with God, and that can be only achieved with what i've described above IMO. So whether that God is called Krishna, Allah or Christ is irrelevant as long as you're in 'heaven'. And that's what religious practice is, IMO"

But I really don't want to argue it because...

Well, it's 4am here, and if I were to really delve into this topic then it would require a proper job. Also, I have no personal problem with your conclusion. I take it too be much more advanced than what is common today. Of course my subjective evaluation of what you adhere to shouldn't mean much to anyone, but you did ask...

Hope that's ok.

Oh, and I was only half serious about the psychadelics. I've just been reading up a lot about them lately. I also so this documentary about DMT called "The Spirit Molecule". Very interesting indeed. It was a little tongue-in-cheeck to be honest, because I believe that Andrespetmonkey recently started smoking pot, so that's why I mentioned it. Makes sense I'm sure.



naimisharanya on 29 December 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
naimisharanya said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
OceanJ said:
Dude you must have really enjoyed your Philosophy of Religion college course.

It doesn't matter whether we dismiss Christianity or any other religion, that's not the real issue.

The bottom line is no one knows why there's something rather than nothing. No one knows where the Singularity that caused the Big Bang that created our known Universe originated.

What's very, very, very interesting - is that we cannot imagine a state of pure nothingness.

This is the bottom line. You can dismiss any particular religion or deity, but you can't explain where time & space & singularities originate from.

Thus, the possibility for higher-beings and gods.


I have never really understood that conclusion. Just because we can't explain it that doesn't mean we should put extra focus on the higher-beings possibility. The mere thought of a higher being is the result of a human brain thinking, and so is Batman and the easter bunny.

Everything that we can think of is a possibility, and there is nothing to suggest that a higher being creating the world is more likely than anything else that we can think of. Not to mention that essentially what you'd do when trying to explain the world's creation by a god is explaining something unexplainable with an unexplainable explanation. It makes no sense.

Until the source of consciousness is localized, then I'm afraid you're mistaken. And this is due to your own (clearly) inherent adherence to the empirical method.

It is taken as a mere product of the mechanistic function of our brain's hardwiring that this singular experience of consciousness has come about. This directly implies that the same experience can be had by a programmed, virtual brain in a hypothetical computer. This proof is what you require.

If on the other hand it cannot be proven, then the postulate that consciousness is a product of an entity external (read seperate) to the body must at the very least be considered.

Since this consciousness is singular, it can discretely be summized. I.e. I have mine and you have yours. It may be postulated that:

a) These seperated consciouss entities are manifest from a primordial consciousness which has all the properties of the individual entities' consciousness, but it is expanded infinitely

The above is explained thoroughly in Vedanta. Erwin Schrodinger agrees:

"Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. If I say that there cannot be more than one consciousness in the same mind, this seems a blunt tautology — we are quite unable to imagine the contrary..."

b) There exists some primordial living entity from whom we have manifested these qualities of personhood. This is thoroughly explained in texts such as the Bhagavad Gita.

"When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous." ~ Albert Einstein

If you think these are unreasonable, then I will start arguing that you are conditioned as much as the Christians you are crusading against in the first place.


I never said that a higher being creating the universe should not be considered. Until we know, everything should be considered, and your post is most certainly not unreasonable.

I must admit though that my lacking English skills makes it hard for me to make out your point. Are you saying that we have scientific reasons to consider that a creator made our universe? If so, I'll not look the other way. I'm not ignorant.


Sorry about the English. I tend to not hold back.

"Are you saying that we have scientific reasons to consider that a creator made our universe? If so, I'll not look the other way. I'm not ignorant."

There certainly is no emperical evidence for a grand Creator. I was building a theology of the soul on the fact that we have no (really nothing) understanding of consciousness, and a good model for explaining it exists already.

You see, certain classes of learned men aren't so interested in emperic proof. I give you a striking example - mathematicians. They don't want to measure anything. Sure, the have something called a "formal proof", but overall they are obsessed with the self-consistency of a particular set of truths.

I aimed to show that there are theologies that are in-depth, advanced, ancient and have also been accepted by western intellectual giants as being thoroughly significant.

I can gather from your writing ethos that you're not arrogant or ignorant. 



Around the Network
Player1x3 on 29 December 2012
naimisharanya said:
Player1x3 said:
naimisharanya said:
Player1x3 said:

Wow, you're really insanely obsessed with Christianity, aren't you? You talk about it waay more than any christian person here does.

You need to get out of your head the idea that we aren't some monkeys in a circus or puppets that are being controlled by the environment. You need to realize that people ARE ABLE to to make their own mind and create their own personalities DESPITE their environment and circumstances. Humans aren't the shallow, naive and weak pussies as you make them to be. They don't necessarily bow to the situation they find themselves in, spread their ass cheeks and say ''well, it's not my fault i turned out like this'. Some people are actually able to take credit and responsibility for their actions and say ' i did/caused this myself, and i made this out of myself BECAUSE of myself'. Now, of course, you ACTUALLY being the type of people you describe in your threads, you can't possibly understand that concept, because you've probably been taught to think like that by your society. (aka Sweden, where everybody pretends everybody is super nice and good, and the minute something goes wrong, you start blaming the environment, childhood, family and other bullshit aspects, because you know, the individual can't possibly have any responsibility)

You use the same arguments to defend convicts as well (rapists, murderers, thieves etc), the good old ''they were influenced by the events in their lives, so they had no control of what those events could lead them into doing'' Bullshit. You can find the examples where the kids from richest families, nicest parents and who had every tool possible for succses in the world still turned out to be complete failures and fuck ups life. And you can also find examples where people from the dirtiest slums of India managed to become successful and respected lawyers, engineers, programmers etc...

Your society, environment, and circumstances of your life do not even remotely defiy your free will. If you really want something, you're gonna get it despite the challenges you face. We can control on how we turn out to be because of the free will. We can choose not to bow to the difficulties and situations.

To specifically answer to the OP, the result 2 is the correct one. The kid entering the heaven will be unaffected by that decision. A pathway to heaven is mostly a personal struggle, traditional religious practicing isn't necessary for it. That depends of course on how you define that. If you say following the specific morals of a religion, i'd probably agree with, but lots of morals aren't exclusive to one religion, so it wouldn't really matter if you pray to Krishna, Allah or Christ, as long as you practice the right morals. I believe that's how you 'get into heaven'. I believe heaven is a metaphor for peace in afterlife with God, and that can be only achieved with what i've described above IMO. So whether that God is called Krishna, Allah or Christ is irrelevant as long as you're in 'heaven'. And that's what religious practice is, IMO

While I disagree with much of what you say, I wholeheartedly agree with your reasoning process.

Moreover, I actually enjoyed reading your philosophical reasoning. This is very rare - especially on VGChartz. What makes this more intruiging is that you are a mere whipper snapper.

Have you ever considered mind expanding substances?

*Oh all of you shut up*

I'm totally serious. You sound ready for it.


Can you specify the parts you're referring to?

And what is a whipper snapper?


Oh goodness, I thought I was quoting someone else. In that case "whipper snapper" doesn't apply. It refers to a very young person usually. I thought I quoted Andrespetmonkey for some reason - sorry.

Well, I don't agree with "I believe heaven is a metaphor for peace in afterlife with God, and that can be only achieved with what i've described above IMO. So whether that God is called Krishna, Allah or Christ is irrelevant as long as you're in 'heaven'. And that's what religious practice is, IMO"

But I really don't want to argue it because...

Well, it's 4am here, and if I were to really delve into this topic then it would require a proper job. Also, I have no personal problem with your conclusion. I take it too be much more advanced than what is common today. Of course my subjective evaluation of what you adhere to shouldn't mean much to anyone, but you did ask...

Hope that's ok.

Oh, and I was only half serious about the psychadelics. I've just been reading up a lot about them lately. I also so this documentary about DMT called "The Spirit Molecule". Very interesting indeed. It was a little tongue-in-cheeck to be honest, because I believe that Andrespetmonkey recently started smoking pot, so that's why I mentioned it. Makes sense I'm sure.


No, what did you mean when you said you enjoyed ' my philosophical reasoning'?

And out of curiosity...what are your religious standings/beliefs?



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 29 December 2012
naimisharanya said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

 


Sorry about the English. I tend to not hold back.

"Are you saying that we have scientific reasons to consider that a creator made our universe? If so, I'll not look the other way. I'm not ignorant."

There certainly is no emperical evidence for a grand Creator. I was building a theology of the soul on the fact that we have no (really nothing) understanding of consciousness, and a good model for explaining it exists already.

You see, certain classes of learned men aren't so interested in emperic proof. I give you a striking example - mathematicians. They don't want to measure anything. Sure, the have something called a "formal proof", but overall they are obsessed with the self-consistency of a particular set of truths.

I aimed to show that there are theologies that are in-depth, advanced, ancient and have also been accepted by western intellectual giants as being thoroughly significant.

I can gather from your writing ethos that you're not arrogant or ignorant. 


Well, generally I do demand empirical evidence when it comes to my beliefs. But if something seems logical only through a non-empirical perspective I neither can nor should blame anyone (including myself) for believing that it is true. And ignoring your actual beliefs (i.e. living in denial) is certainly not a good thing.

I'll have to look up more about these non-empirical explanations of the consciousness. Seems interesting indeed.



LinkVPit on 29 December 2012

So basically never start a religious thread.

Either for or against!



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 29 December 2012
LinkVPit said:
So basically never start a religious thread.

Either for or against!


Why not?

I think it has been very interesting this far. I even found a new subject to look up :P



LinkVPit on 29 December 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
LinkVPit said:
So basically never start a religious thread.

Either for or against!


Why not?

I think it has been very interesting this far. I even found a new subject to look up :P

Hell, I agree with you.

All I'm saying is it more hassle than its worth!