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

Forums - General Discussion - Why Christianity is Fundamentally Flawed

sperrico87 said:

Right... because you know and understand Christianity more than the tens of thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the purpose and theology of the Church.


Well, anybody and their mother can join christianity so it can't be that hard, convoluted or complicated. Plus, it's all just faith, what is their to study? And don't say the bible, that thing is more flawed than my calculus exams.



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

Around the Network
Player1x3 said:
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?


It would be overly laborious to summarize my religious standings/beliefs here. The easiest thing to do if you were really interested would be to read Bhagavad Gita.

Your reasoning was not infused with ego. That's why I enjoyed it. It was sincere reasoning. Make sense? 



IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
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.

 

When one considers it properly, then it may dawn on one that consciousness is constitutionally a subjective experience. Therefore, these empirical methods which are per definition objective, become (at least to a certain extent) obsolete.

I could prescribe an analytical test for you (serious). It may involve some naturally grown fungus (which may be illegal), and an open mindset, but it will (medically speaking) be totally safe. I guarantee you a deeper insight into this problem from there.



ON TOPIC.

Christianity is fundamentally flawed. The biggest indicator of this is that practically no Christians follow the teachings (and lifestyle) of Jesus at all.

Calling yourselves disciples! Should be ashamed of yourselves! Go to India and you'll see what disciple means.



Areym said:
sperrico87 said:

Right... because you know and understand Christianity more than the tens of thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the purpose and theology of the Church.


Well, anybody and their mother can join christianity so it can't be that hard, convoluted or complicated. Plus, it's all just faith, what is their to study? And don't say the bible, that thing is more flawed than my calculus exams.

I was talking about clergy-men, laymen, Monks, church philosophers, and Theologians. People that actually know because they spend their lives studying it.  Not Mary Jane and Sue Sally that decide to attend Mass once every 6 months.



 

Around the Network
Dr.Grass said:
ON TOPIC.

Christianity is fundamentally flawed. The biggest indicator of this is that practically no Christians follow the teachings (and lifestyle) of Jesus at all.

Calling yourselves disciples! Should be ashamed of yourselves! Go to India and you'll see what disciple means.


I agree that nearly all of people who call themselves Christian are hypocrites because they behave almost nothing like they're supposed to.  However, there are indeed a small portion of people who dedicate their lives to studying it and living by it best they can.  So, I don't think it's fundamentally flawed, I just think too many people take the word Christian or Catholic for granted and if they were told by a truly pious Priest or minister how they ought to be living, they'd be shocked.



 

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

One thing that close to all Christians have in common is that they all believe that we have a free will. They say that God created all humans and gave them free will, allowing them to choose how they want to live their lives. After your life has ended, God will take a look at how you decided to live your life and will determine whether you deserve to live in heaven or hell for an eternity. And due to your free will, you would have no one but yourself to blame for entering hell (or heaven, depending on your preferences).

Now, let's create a hypothetical scenario: One kid is raised in a "godless" family, and is experiencing a perfectly decent upbringing. He is somewhat aware of how God supposedly works and knows some basic lines of the Bible. His parent though are strictly nonreligious and ridicules everything regarding religion on a daily basis whenever they have the chance. This obviously has a strong effect on the kid's views on religion and believers, resulting in him more or less copying their views on the matter. The neighborhood however is strictly religious, resulting in close to all neighbors reporting the kid's parent for child abuse, fearing that further 'mistreatment' may cause him to be more easily tempted by the devil in the future (or alternatively fearing that he will have a more difficult time to connect with God), thus increasing the odds of the kid (and his future relatives) entering hell after death. The social services happens to be controlled by strict believers as well, and in the end they decide that the kid will be taken away from his parents and be put in a more religious environment. Now, let's take a look at the possible outcomes:

 

Result 1 - Whether the kid eventually enters heaven or hell is affected by this decision

This means that thanks to the social services' actions, the kid became influenced by its new and more religious environment, and eventually ended up in heaven as a result. He decided to put his lack of faith away, and started a new life. Had the social services not taken action, then the kid would not have ended up in heaven since he would have made different decisions in life without this new influence. (Note: In an alternative scenario he might as well be mistreated and chances of entering hell increases instead.)

 

Result 2 - Whether the kid eventually enters heaven or hell is unaffected by this decision

This means that taking the kid away from his parents does not have any effect at all on whether he enters heaven or hell once he dies. In the end, it all comes down to the actual free parts of your will, while opinions and unconscious actions based on the many outer influences (in this case, influences by an upbringing in a religious environment) are completely disregarded since you had no control over them.

 

In case you haven't already noticed it yourself, here is the flaw that I find in all this: The first result suggests that teaching a child about Christianity increases its chances of entering heaven. The free will does not have full control of whether you enter heaven or hell, and outer influences will affect where you end up in your afterlife, thus giving an unfair disadvantage to those not exposed to proper Christian teachings. An important conclusion that one may draw here is that the more countries/people that would be properly educated about Christianity, the more people would go to heaven. In other words: Their (the non-/false believers') free will does not have full control over their final destination, but are directly affected by the "proper" believers' free wills. Again, this is unfair.

The second result suggests that outer influences has no effect on whether you end up in heaven or hell at all. No teachings gained from outer influences can be accounted for since they have no effect on your actual free will. If they did, then that would suggest that people with "better" outer influences (which they obviously have no control over) would also have a better chance of entering heaven, which would be an unfair advantage. An important conclusion that one may draw at this point is that all religious practicing might as well be disregarded since they will not affect your chances of entering heaven anyway. In other words: Religious practicing would ultimately be pointless.

 

This, my fellow VGCharterz, makes no sense to me.

My umbridge with the arrogance of your thread title aside, here is why I disagree with your scenario and thus your point...

A good Christian wouldn't call social services on a child raised by non-religious parents.  That is both sinful and wrong, and I don't know any Christians who would do that to someone.  To me, this assumption suggests you haven't been around very many Christians.  Even with non-religious parents, it is perfectly possible for the child to find God in his own way, and parents being non-religious is totally and completely irrelevant to the upbringing of the child.

Secondly, it is highly unlikely that the social services case worker(s) would be religious.  It's a government job employing mostly college-educated single women in largely urban areas, thus it is far morely likely the case workers are either Atheist, non-religious, or non-denominational.

Lastly, at least in Catholocism, you don't need to be baptised or practicing to be assured you'll get into purgatory or heaven.  The way most religions work, people who are unable to join a Christian faith either because they live in a Communist society, or a tribal society with no knowledge of Christianity, they would be judged solely on the way in which they lived, not punished due to their ignorance.  They would essentially be given a pass, unless they commited murder or something terrible like that, and had no remorse for their sins.



 

You may want to study the Bible before stating flaws that do not exist.

You argue that free will really has no play in scenario 1, because external situations influenced a person's decision. Yet, the reality is that God knows the heart of the child, regardless of his upbringing and how his will was or was not involved in a decision.

Romans 9:

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

Therefore, God knows the true intentions of the child, and makes the value judgment, not you nor I. So what is the power of telling a person about Jesus? The goal is to allow everyone to make a decision, one way or another, if they would accept a relationship with Jesus. So that their free will is expressed at some point. What if its never expressed? Then the argument defaults back on Romans 9 and countless other verses that shows us that God is the ultimate judge of a persons' life and lifestyle, and no one else.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

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.

Thus, Agnosticism.  There is no answer.  No one knows.  It's impossible to know.



IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

One thing that close to all Christians have in common is that they all believe that we have a free will. They say that God created all humans and gave them free will, allowing them to choose how they want to live their lives. After your life has ended, God will take a look at how you decided to live your life and will determine whether you deserve to live in heaven or hell for an eternity. And due to your free will, you would have no one but yourself to blame for entering hell (or heaven, depending on your preferences).

Now, let's create a hypothetical scenario: One kid is raised in a "godless" family, and is experiencing a perfectly decent upbringing. He is somewhat aware of how God supposedly works and knows some basic lines of the Bible. His parent though are strictly nonreligious and ridicules everything regarding religion on a daily basis whenever they have the chance. This obviously has a strong effect on the kid's views on religion and believers, resulting in him more or less copying their views on the matter. The neighborhood however is strictly religious, resulting in close to all neighbors reporting the kid's parent for child abuse, fearing that further 'mistreatment' may cause him to be more easily tempted by the devil in the future (or alternatively fearing that he will have a more difficult time to connect with God), thus increasing the odds of the kid (and his future relatives) entering hell after death. The social services happens to be controlled by strict believers as well, and in the end they decide that the kid will be taken away from his parents and be put in a more religious environment. Now, let's take a look at the possible outcomes:

 

Result 1 - Whether the kid eventually enters heaven or hell is affected by this decision

This means that thanks to the social services' actions, the kid became influenced by its new and more religious environment, and eventually ended up in heaven as a result. He decided to put his lack of faith away, and started a new life. Had the social services not taken action, then the kid would not have ended up in heaven since he would have made different decisions in life without this new influence. (Note: In an alternative scenario he might as well be mistreated and chances of entering hell increases instead.)

 

Result 2 - Whether the kid eventually enters heaven or hell is unaffected by this decision

This means that taking the kid away from his parents does not have any effect at all on whether he enters heaven or hell once he dies. In the end, it all comes down to the actual free parts of your will, while opinions and unconscious actions based on the many outer influences (in this case, influences by an upbringing in a religious environment) are completely disregarded since you had no control over them.

 

In case you haven't already noticed it yourself, here is the flaw that I find in all this: The first result suggests that teaching a child about Christianity increases its chances of entering heaven. The free will does not have full control of whether you enter heaven or hell, and outer influences will affect where you end up in your afterlife, thus giving an unfair disadvantage to those not exposed to proper Christian teachings. An important conclusion that one may draw here is that the more countries/people that would be properly educated about Christianity, the more people would go to heaven. In other words: Their (the non-/false believers') free will does not have full control over their final destination, but are directly affected by the "proper" believers' free wills. Again, this is unfair.

The second result suggests that outer influences has no effect on whether you end up in heaven or hell at all. No teachings gained from outer influences can be accounted for since they have no effect on your actual free will. If they did, then that would suggest that people with "better" outer influences (which they obviously have no control over) would also have a better chance of entering heaven, which would be an unfair advantage. An important conclusion that one may draw at this point is that all religious practicing might as well be disregarded since they will not affect your chances of entering heaven anyway. In other words: Religious practicing would ultimately be pointless.

 

This, my fellow VGCharterz, makes no sense to me.

I think the first result may actually not be as unfair as it seems.

While I agree that, if we assume that external factors can influence free will, a person mightmake the choice to be saved or not based on the information he is again, I do not think that means it was unfair.  A Christian viewpoint of free will one might have is that, while desires or motivations can make a choice more easy or difficult, free will is ultimately responsible.  That is, no matter the pressure or temptation to make a decision, a free-willed person can still go the other direction.  Therefore, if someone has at least the choice to be saved available to them at all, then they have enough.  That some other person might have more motivation to make the better choice does not lift responsibility from him. 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz