|
|
Subject: Christian Cliche Parts 1 and 2
Name: Jim
Date Posted: Mar 4, 06 - 5:07 AM
IP Address: 24.3.35.140
Message:
From my Message Board regarding the page about Christian Cliches
I wanted to e-mail this to the person who runs the site but his link is broken to the e-mail so here it is in 2 parts
The link does work, it's just that it's written without the @ or .com to stop the spam bots from flooding my e-mail.
Have you ever really sat down with the attempt to understand some of these things about Christianity and God. You are way oversimplifying some complex issues in order to develop a straw man that you can tear down easily but you avoid all the real issues.
I've spent many years researching and attempting to
understand Christianity and God/s and have read a vast amount of
literature on that and other related subjects.
Have a look through the religion menu
and you'll find close on a 100 mbs - approx. 100 books of
information including: The Christ by
John Remsberg, which is a well-researched analysis of evidence of
His existence.
There's also The
World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves; an
interesting read though of somewhat dubious scholarship.
How about this as an understanding of Christianity and being a
Christian:
The Christian gospel is, at its heart, about loyalties, faith,
dependencies and a message of free grace. In it, Jesus set down
some specific guidelines for those who would be his disciples:
declutter, divest, deaccumulate, resist the urge to overly
consume.
A Christian is someone who believes in the existence of one god
and that this God is a trinity (not strictly true as some
Christian sects believe that God is a single entity, not dualist
or a trio).
Someone who believes that the Bible was either inspired by, or is
a special revelation from, God.
Someone who believes that Adam and Jesus have a special position
in the eternal scheme of things - Adam brought sin in to the
world and Jesus died to relieve all of Adam's descendents of the
burden of that sin.
Someone who believes that by allowing Jesus to be their Savior he
lifts the heavy yoke of their sin off their shoulders and carries
it himself.
That's the basic a definition of a Christian and it's fairly
vague because Christianity is not a monoblock of commonality but
consists of many different fractions, the main ones being the
Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Fundamentalist
Churches, the Protestant Churches and various Fringe
churches.
These can be further delineated by interpretive methods into
conservative, mainline, liberal and reform, all starting with
different assumptions and reaching totally different
conclusions.
Because there are so many Christian denominations - 34,000+
according to Religious Tolerance,
each with a different interpretation of the Bible, it's possible
for any two groups, or individuals, to hold diametrically opposed
views and still legitimately be classed as Christians.
Although many use the epithet 'true' or 'real' because they are
certain that they, or their denomination, have the right
interpretation and anyone who holds a different position can not
possibly be a 'true' Christian, anyone who fits the definition
above can be classed as a Christian.
Don't forget that in your Father's house are many mansions and,
whilst you may not agree with the rantings and actions of such
sickos as Mother Theresa and Hitler, there is no denying the fact
that they were of the Christian faith and their interpretation of
that faith allowed them to act the way they did.
Incidentally, the original followers of Jesus were not called
Christians, they were called Nazarenes and/or Ebionites and were
led by “James the Just,” the oldest brother of
Jesus.
They lifted a whole lot of their beliefs - baptism, repentance, a
new covenant, a messianic, apocalyptic believing leader, etc.
from the messianic Essenism movement which appeared over 150
years before the supposed birth of Jesus.
The term "Christian" was first used in Acts Chapter 11 to
describe the disciples of Paul.
Because the early Christians considered that the Nazarenes -
i.e."true Christians" - held heretical beliefs, they held no
qualms about manifesting their Christian love towards them by
persecutions, banishment and slaughter.
Not to mention some of your science as well as conclusions are very flawed specifically relating to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You totally are wrong on that issue. You quoted the elementary understanding but not a scientific understanding.
The second law of thermodynamics (also called the law of increasing entropy) actually has to do with the organization of matter. All things being equal, matter never moves from a lesser level of complexity to a higher form of complexity. Similar to if you throw a pebble in a lake the frequency and intensity will always become less from the center out never more intense.
The "open" or "closed" system is really only relevant to maintaining an existing system. As in winding a watch. No matter how much you wind it only keeps running, it doesn't grow legs and become a turtle.
The "Evolution violates the 2nd law of
Thermodynamics" entry is not meant to be a scientific
explaination but to counter the claim that evolution is
impossible. That's why I give the links to Talk Origins
and Cornell
Astro
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a
misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics,
since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal
major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms
reproduce with only small changes between generations (after
their own kind, so to speak).
For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or
shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their
parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having
four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear,
the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive
success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages
survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of
these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't
violate any physical laws.
From Five
Major Misconceptions about Evolution
The "open" or "closed" argument is actually an atheist cliché' that I often here from people desperate to believe that there is no God.
I've never met anyone who was desperate to believe
that there is no God although I have met many who, dispite the
fact that there is absolutely no evidence, are desperate to
believe in God/s.
If you have any testable proof for the existence of God/s, then
please present it. You'll be the first person in history to ever
do so.
I am quite open to the idea that God/s are possible. But I want
to see evidence before I believe in them.
I tell you all this not because I desire to "condemn" you or convince you that you are "going to hell" I tell you this because you seem like an educated individual and once I was a lot like you (from what I can tell) I went on a scientific exploration to try and convince myself that there is no God using strict scientific method. I delved into quantum physics and quantum mechanics as well as several evolutionary and paleontology sciences.
One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is
disprove the existence of God/s. So when people try to use
science to disprove their existence, they're using science
illegitimately.
However, it is possible to disprove the existence of a
specific god by demonstrating that its existence violates
the laws of logic.
"The purpose of science is not to find "facts" or discover
"truth," but rather to formulate and use theories in order to
solve problems and ultimately to organize, unify, and explain all
the material phenomena of the universe. Scientists attempt to
avoid the use of "fact, "proof," and "truth," because these words
could easily be interpreted to connote absolutes. Nothing in
science is deemed absolute. Science deals only with theories or
relative "truth,"-a temporary correctness so far as can be
ascertained by the rational mind at the present time." Stansfield
W.D.,"The Science of Evolution"
The thing that cinched it for me in the end was pure statistics, perhaps the most irrefutable science of all. Numbers don't lie. Sherlock holms once said that "When we remove all the impossibilities, whatever remains, however unlikely---- must be the truth." (paraphrase)
Perhaps you could help me out here. What exactly IS your argument? Do you have specific scientific evidence to back it up? That is, testable evidence from the natural world?
Most evolutionists wont even argue that at the end of the day evolution is statistically impossible.
I assume you have evidence that leads you to
disagree with the findings from literally hundreds of thousands
of scientific fieldwork expeditions and millions of lab
experiments?.
Can you provide a list of the evolutionists who "won't even argue
that at the end of the day evolution is statistically
impossible?"
It violates another mathematical law (one that most people never hear about especially in school) called the law of impossibility. It is the point where probability mathematics ends. Simply put it is stated that if something has to many variables ( more than 1 in 10 to the 50th power ) then it will never happen no matter how much time you have. That is to say if you have 500 dice in a bucket no matter how many times you fill the bucket and roll the dice it will never ever come up with 500 sixes. it is a mathematical impossibility.
The good, ol' epistemological argument against
evolution as fact. According to this argument, the probability
that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it
may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus
evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be
appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but
it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould
pointed out, means something that is so highly probable that it
would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by
others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.
Adapted from Talk
Origins
Incidentally, the universe revolves according to the rules of the
calculus while the dice follow those of statistics.
Most mathematicians and evolutionists (including Darwin) feel that evolutionary probability to create even one random amino acid ( which is only a building block to life Not life ) is somewhere around 1 in 10 to the 500th power. The same is approximately true for even one successful random mutation. Which is the cornerstone of evolution. And we would need billions of those. You see evolution is a contrary to not just thermodynamics but also statistics and probability mathematics by a huge margin. That is unless you subscribe to the Chaos theory but that is real blind faith and still doesn't really deal with the issue.
I get the impression that you are overly impressed
by seemingly large numbers, misunderstand the nature of
statistics and that you have no real idea about evolution:
"Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated
supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms
present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the
course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is
an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living
things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the
course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species,
the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution
has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an
issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the
central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern
the mechanisms by which evolution occurs."
From: Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989,
Worth Publishers, p. 972
I can give you at least a dozen other scientific models that make evolution impossible like molecular genetics and paleontology and geology as well. So then logically if evolution is scientifically impossible then whatever is left over must be truth..... If not accident then it must be design. if there is a design there must therefore be a designer. It is very logical at it's core.
Oddly enough, if you study the evidence from other
scientific disciples such as "molecular genetics and paleontology
and geology as well" they all support the facts of evolution, but
by all means go ahead and show all your massive scientific
evidence against evolution.
Please feel free to show a scientific theory of creation and/or
intelligent design, and show the scientific evidence that
supports it.
Feel free to back up your assertion of "at least a dozen other
scientific models that make evolution impossible.
If you can disprove the validity of the vast body of evidence,
from a breathtakingly broad range of disciplines, that
establishes the Theory of Evolution as one of the bedrocks of
modern science, then I urge you to submit your evidence to
Scientific American and collect your Noble prize, and the
£1,000,000 that goes with it.
Which gets back to your assertion that atheism requires no faith. If I must check my brain at the door and believe that there is no designer even though that stands in direct opposition to what the scientific evidence tells me then, Yes I would be placing my "fatih" in atheism.
Oh hum....
| How Atheism Differs From Theism | THEISTS | ATHEISTS |
| Requires faith | YES | NO |
| Belief in God(s) | YES | NO |
| Belief in an afterlife | YES | NO |
| Belief in miracles | YES | NO |
| Belief in the soul | YES | NO |
| Belief in prayer | YES | NO |
| Prefers superstion to logic | YES | NO |
| Central holy book or scripture | YES | NO |
| Has a history of repression | YES | NO |
| Has a history of "anti-learning" | YES | NO |
| Have churches, temples,etc | YES | NO |
| Have priests or religious leaders | YES | NO |
| Requires belief despite conflicting evidence | YES | NO |
| Supports holy wars or religious killing | YES | NO |
| Belief in supernatural origins of universe and mankind | YES | NO |
| Imposes restrictions on dress, diet, marriage, lifestyle,etc. | YES | NO |
| Sees faith without evidence as a virtue | YES | NO |
| Requires proselytising or door-to-door preaching | YES | NO |
| Attracts murderous fundamentalist extremists | YES | NO |
| Justifies racism, sexism and other discrimination | YES | NO |
| Requires ceremonies and acts of worship | YES | NO |
| Teaches that we are born into sin | YES | NO |
| Belief in the supernatural | YES | NO |
| Believes that they are God's choosen | YES | NO |
| Uses heaven and hell to gain converts | YES | NO |
| How Atheism Differs From Theism | THEISTS | ATHEISTS |
Science beats religious faith in many minds for the simple fact: When negative evidence is found, the belief is altered. When a religious notion is proven false, people blame Lucifer, or say its a test. Scientists are slightly more capable of admitting themselves wrong. For instance, the science community realized that they had the wrong skull on a body, and 'brontosaurus' was replaced with 'apatasaurus'.
Scientists, good ones at least, are aware that they will make mistakes. It's actually the whole point of science.
Theism, however, cannot be tested, and its often considered heresy to attempt it.
Christianity has no more valid basis than any other belief system. No religion is more provable than the other, despite what many claim.
On the flip side of that coin, I can statistically prove that the Bible is true (or at least that there must be supernatural influence) based on probability models using the same statistics. Which is a discussion for another time If you care to have it.
I will agree with you n this though. A lot of Christians don't think very hard. and unfortunately do use ridiculous cliché’s and that is unfortunate. It's sad that you have never met someone who articulately defends their belief system. (I blame that lack of critical thinking on our public school system) Christians say some of the dumbest things I have ever herd.
This is part of the trouble with religion, isn't it?
Most of the adherents have only the vaguest idea what their
faith, tenets or texts mean. If more of them actually read their
'Good Books' there would be a lot more atheists.
It may surprise you to learn that I am a registered Minister and
a Doctor of Divinity and that I have met many people who have
articulately defended their beliefs and their faiths. What it all
comes down to, in the end, is faith - belief without proof.
Christians may say some of the dumbest things but they don't have
a monopoly in that area: try spending some time on an atheist
board...lacking a belief in god/s doesn't mean someone is
brighter or more intelligent than a believer, it just means that
they lack a belief in god/s
Having said that, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water (cliché' intended). If there is even a shred of the slightest possibility that what I am saying has any validity at all, then certainly it is worth a second thought.
I've given it lots of thought - hence the site - but if you want me to accept the validity of your arguements then the burden of proof is on you
If there is even the slightest chance that there is a possibility you might have an eternal soul then you might want to just consider what I am saying. Belief in God does not make you weak minded, but ignoring truth does.
All that aside, in the end I would have had to deny one more undeniable evidence in order to stick with my atheism and that is this. I have seen, with my own eyes, unquestionable, undeniable miracles. I have seen terminal cancer 100% healed without a doctor more than once. I have seen a women get out of a wheel chair that I personally knew had been in it for 17 years. Miracles happen every day. I have seen an x-ray of a boy I personally knew that was almost decapitated, who had a broken neck who the doctors said would be a paraplegic (if he survived) get out of the hospital weeks later and walk under his own power. I saw with my own eyes Xrays 3 days apart one with a clearly broken neck and one completely restored.
Certainly you are saying to yourself "yea right, he's making that crap up" Your probably saying "I’ve never seen a miracle" or " if I saw a miracle then I'd believe" To that I can say only this. You will never see a miracle if you aren't around the people and in the places they happen. And certainly you will never see them if you start from the supposition they don't exist.
If you believe in a higher power, continue to do so. There is nothing about science in general, or evolution in particular, that requires you to cease believing in a creator. However, if you feel that evolution, as an explanation, is inadequate, you need to educate yourself. I suggest the Evolution Education Resource Center, if the Talk.Origins Archive has proved too difficult for you.
Just bear in mind that Darwin's explanation of life's origins doesn't declare the nonexistence of God, nor does it invalidate anybody's spiritual quest.
As you're the one invoking miracles the burden of
proof is on you to substantiate your claims and to show that
there are no plausible counter-explanations. Can you do
that?
Hopefully this
article will make people more aware of how easily they are
deceived not only by pious fakes but also by their own
wish-fulfilling natures
A true book need not be divinely inspired. If it is true, it does not matter whether it is inspired or not. The label of "inspired" is used when the book would not be believed otherwise. One thing you cannot do is to continue to believe the accounts of creation written in the sacred books, if they do not agree with what we know to be true about the physical world.
The fact of evolution can, and have been, accepted regardless of religon, the truth of evolution holds true regardless of whether you follow a religion or no religion at all. It does not matter.
There is absolute truth and the answers are out there. My only suggestion to you is this, just be open to the possibility that you haven't found it yet. I hope this did not offend you. Thanks for listening.
There's an open invitation on my forum if you care to write a guest article about your beliefs. Feel free to post it there or send it direct to me
I don't offend easily and I've been condemned to Hell so many times by loving Christians that the Devil has built a new ring especially for me.
