Why christians believe what they believe... (1582 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.53 on 40 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <mystikast.at.comcast.net> (View user info) at 2004-03-23 20:21:45 EST
I believe that very few christians actually believe in a god...
From my experience as a christian, arguments with christians, and talking about christianity with many peers, I have come to conclude that:
Christians believe in a higher being as a means of comfort or insecurity.
They use it as a justification of a good deed, feeling that there should be a reward, and that reward is the gates to heaven. You give some extra money to a kid you don't know in school, because you cant feel better for yourself, and feeling as a better person, you need justification and a reward as an individual. I feel this way some times, though I am not christian. It's human nature. Knowing that there will be no reward, only self-satisfaction, is not enough for some people.
As a means of help. Why do so many people in third-world countries believe in a god, because they have little or no education, and need some means of, belief, that they will one day be redeemed for living in the poor countries they do. "God will save us, he will help us, we will be rewarded."
Did you know that religion is the cause of the most unnatural deaths in the world. Add every non-religous unnatural death ever recorded, and it will never equal the amount of religion influenced unnatural deaths.
For a thousand years the Church was a tyrannical dictatorship that used religion to control the uneducated masses. Yeah, the church used the power instated by false teachings, the persuade the minds of people, to do what they wanted.
It is also believed that religion was instated as means of a moral system. Act immoral, do wrong, disobey, and you will be sent to Hell. Do good, give us money, follow the system, and you shall spend eternity with god.
Eternity with god? Even if I believed such, I would not want an eternity of anything. Eternity is a very hard concept to understand, but if you understand the concept of eternity, you know that an eternity of anything, is something, to be undesired.
Most christians don't even know what they believe, or why they believe it. Only 20% of all registered christians attend a religous ritual or mass, on a weekly basis.
Christians also have a tedency to use recursion.
The bible is true because god wrote it, and god is real because the bible says so.
I have attended catholic schools for 11 years, and I will now base on what I've picked up from my religion teachers, and the rest of the religous community.
-Anything good that happens is a gift or miracle from god, and anything bad that happens is the result of "free will."
-Whenever something is unexplainable, it is said you just need to have "faith."
But what is faith? I always hear my teacher saying faith is a gift from god, to explain what we can't understand.
Okay, so let me get this strait; anything bad is the result of free will, and anything that is unexplainable by the bible or other, faith is needed. So something we can't understand, is explained by faith, an understanding of that which we cannot understand.
That is the sum of my thoughts on christianity, for the most part.
-Thanks
-Jeff Laverty
Interested? Check up on a great source:
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/antibible/
User Reviews
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-10-07 10:43:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-03-25 13:28:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"This will probably get negative scores despite being good because of the need of christains to bash anything that goes against them....even if it's true."
--What was the purpose of that statement? Your comment contributed absolutely nothing of benefit to this discussion or the people in it, and it appears it was either posted solely to be inflamatory or it was borne out of a very limited understanding and experience of the nature of Christianity and the people who adhere to its dogma.
Whichever it was, I and others of any organization who would be the focus of such sweeping defamatory generalizations would greatly appreciate the cessation of such comments.
Secondly, there are enough errant comments in the original post (some which have already been discussed) that it is apparent that sufficient research had not been done on the chosen topic. There's really no ground for it to be called a "good" post.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-03-25 12:41:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
JinkyWilliams - No, I had to disappoint you, but I have not had to deal with this issue on a personal level. Thank whatever god you believe in but my own father is a feminist who raised me to be self sufficient and not to take crap from anyone. In my opinion, men who are confident and secure in their own masculinity do not feel the need to divide the world up into male and female and assign jobs, duties, and responsibilities accordingly. That just makes no damn sense and merely reinforces a senseless stereotype. I notice that you did not bother to address my issue that we are no longer a hunter gatherer society and therefore not constrained by physical limitations and/or strengths inherent in the simple biology of gender.
There is absolutely nothing, that's right nothing about my daily life that requires a show of brute strength or whatever magical qualities that you and your God believe men have over women. The simple fact is that we've evolved beyond the point where such things matter.
What I have seen is lives of people very close to me absolutely destroyed over this attitude. Do you know what life is like for women in this world you create? I'll fill you in. You grow up being told that certain things either are or are not ladylike. With limited choices and dreams, you end up fulfilling these stereotypes. This is quite simple, how many girls have been told growing up that they are not supposed to be say good at math because apparently there is a prevalent theory among Christians that you have to have a dick to comprehend abstract logic. So these girls grow up being told that their purpose in life is to be a mommy. They find some guy to marry and pump out these little darlings. Personally I see this as the oldest profession, what else do you call it when someone's goal in life is to marry someone who will "take care of them"? Then they raise the kids and essentially act as domestic servants to these me man bring home meat guys. Perhaps their lives are fulfilled, perhaps not, but eventually those kids grow up and they don't need someone to wipe their ass for them. This leaves the little mommy with nothing, no purpose in life. Her whole world has been those kids and now she's adrift and does not know what to do with herself. Maybe she goes out and finds a job, but being out of the workforce means that she is really only qualified to work as a low level clerk processing worker's compensation claims for the state of Missouri. (hypothetically of course) She expects to find satisfaction from her job, but she doesn't really because it's low skill, low pay, high crap. She constantly e-mails her younger sister asking for advice about how to deal with this or that issue that comes up, basically she just doesn't understand office politics but by now these darling children have gone to college and she needs to work to help pay for tuition, books, foreign exchange trips to Japan and the like. She is miserable, she is unhappy, and she doesn't know what to do about it. One day, her younger sister realizes that she hasn't heard from her for a few days and this seems odd. She tries to contact her, but can't seem to get her to respond to e-mails or phone calls. She calls their other sister and their parents to see if anyone else has heard anything and they have not. Eventually she breaks down and calls her asshole religious freak brother-in-law who tells her that her sister had a nervous breakdown and was taking a little time off. Eventually she remerges but now she constantly has to pop various pills to counter her depression.
If you think that scenario is rare, open your eyes and look around. You claim to care about the women in your culture, but I promise you, you are slowly killing them with this attitude.
Now who about this scenario:
Girl is raised by a feminist father, he is a strong influence in her life. When she is a young teen, she gets caught up in the whole NOW movement, but it seems a bit off to her. The message seems to be that men are evil oppressors, but she knows this is not always true so she drops out of it and decides that men and women are equal, it is not that men are superior to women or that women are superior to men, it is more likely the case that everyone has individual talents, strengths, and weaknesses. She meets a guy who was raised by a strong woman and expects women to be capable creatures, in fact he calls himself a feminist. He is not a weak subservient creature or she wouldn't have any respect for him. Their relationship is a partnership. There are things that he's better at, things she's better at, and things they do together. At no point do either of them see themselves as being "in charge" and there is no need for someone to be. They make decisions together. They respect each other and rely on each other and are happy together.
I guess it all depends on which life you want to live, but I prefer the enlightened life where there are no artificial barriers based on some sort of 2,000 year old notion of the roll of men and women.
Submitted by Ren at 2004-03-25 12:06:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
this will probably get negative scores despite being good because of the need of christains to bash anything that goes against them....even if it's true.
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-03-25 11:46:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I just wanted to add:
"GO YAMS WOOO!!"
Great job of explaining your position logically, having a good conclusion, and (except for one part near the beginning) staying objective and away from offensive rhetoric. And a grand job of grammar and spelling. I've not checked it extensively, but there's evidence that you have a firm grasp on the English language.
I applaud.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-03-24 18:25:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by vergedor (user info) at 2004-03-24 12:51:23 (#)
Ranking: -1
Quartermain sucks
****************************************************************************
Thats it? Your entire contribution to this topic is a random personal insult? Why even bother?
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-03-24 15:43:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Jinky - Men and women not being identical does not make men superior to women."
--Again, I agree. I've not stated or implied once in my replies that men are superior to women.
"My issue with what you said is this business of men doing what they were supposed to be doing leading to women not having a reason to usurp men's God-given role as head of household - that is bullshit."
--And this is where we will continue to disagree indefinitely. What I believe and how I believe I should live my life comes from the Bible. It clearly states God's purpose for marriage and for the different roles of a man and a woman as an allegory to the relationship between God and the church.
If you want to discuss the validity of the Bible, fine. However, discussing the vaildity of this point in particular is moot, because of my understanding that the whole of the Bible is correct.
"Although, partially right in that men doing what they should be doing would have prevented the necessity of feminism."
--It is nice to know we share some common ground.
"You and I differ on what that should be. In your opinion men should be ruling over their house like some sort of demigod and in my case, I believe that men should be treating women as equal partners."
--I am taking a guess (and a guess only) that your view and understanding of the system I'm explaining is flavored by negative experiences with male authority figures you've had in the past (both personal and other). I'm not going to go Freudian here, but I've observed that people who've had poor examples of male authority tend to have a harder time understanding the true nature of God's design for His perscribed relationship. This is just an observation of mine, and is a generalization only, not something I view as a hard and fast law. This guess was brought on by the "demigod" remark. A leader of a household not only has power but responsibility. A husband should be, among other things, a warrior, a king, a servant, and a friend. They have the responsibility to tend well the resources under their posession, and to look out for the well-being of those under his "jurisdiction", if you will.
"This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me resent the hell out of Christianity. Where do you get off telling me that just because I am a women, I am somehow less capable?"
--On what do you base your understanding that men and women have equal abilities? I challange that theory. I see no reference, religious or secular, that ever states that men and woman are equally capable in all areas. There are things that women just plain can do more efficiently and/or better than men, and likewise for men. I say neither women or men are less or more capable to live how they were designed to live.
"Sure there are women out there who agree with you, they are a blight on society..."
--I would rather you not say that.
"...and making my life much more difficult."
--Depending on your goals, I concur.
This is my issue with housewives. I, not them, am the one out here in the workplace having to overcome these bullshit asinine barriers that their men try to place on real women.
--What is your definition of a "real woman"?
"I've heard this argument before, 'oh we don't degrade women, we put them on a pedestal because we honor them and think they should be above the petty minutia of the world.' Well I for one don't want to be placed on a pedestal. I am not weak..."
--I don't agree with that argument, either. And despite the best attempts of the most chivalrous and/or worshipful of men, women will have to deal with petty minutia. And I've no illusion that women are weak. The idolizing of someone is just as degrading as not giving them the respect they deserve.
"...I do not need anyone to make any decisions for me, and I'll thank you to get the hell out of my way."
--By all means.
"Women are different from men, but they are not inferior secondary models of the human species."
--Agreed. I've stated my case regarding this previously, so I'll not add anything further.
"Make your own goddamn sandwich and I'll change my own flat tire."
--If it is your desire, let it be so.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by Jocko_Johnson (user info) at 2004-03-24 14:36:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
exactly. here's another great post about the oppression of christ
http://www.ubersite.com/m/27698
Submitted by scaryaaron (user info) at 2004-03-24 14:28:27 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
What? Is this your best argument?
Think about this. Every agnostic or Athiest person accuses Christians of beleiving the way they do as a "crutch". But, maybe that is because they are trying to turn the tables, so to speak. Maybe not beleiving is a crutch that they themselves use to absolve themselves of the moral responsibilities, humility, and self control that Christianity requires. Maybe not beleiving allows them to do things without guilt that would otherwise leave them feeling uneasy. It's easier to accuse Christians of being crazy than it is to take a serious look at the way you live your own life and deal with the self conviction that results, and then commit to making a change. The bottom line is the fact that there is no less proof that there is a God than there is stating that God does not exist. This is why it is still a struggle after thousands of years.
As for the whole religion created by the ruling people to keep the paupers in line bit down below... It's a crock of shit. Maybe the history that you claim to rely on so heavily for your argument has escaped you. Throughout the early history of the Christian church, it had to endure extreme fascism from governments. Early Christians were persecuted by the Sanhedrin council(Jewish leaders), the Egyptians, and later protestants were even under persecution from the Catholics. Try again.
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-03-24 14:27:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"You should really talk to someone who has studyed the Bible before you make an idiot of yourself."
All righty. Firstly, I do apologize. I could have done without my opening statement. I didn't mean it to come out as such, and I truly meant no insult, but it could have been done without nonetheless. Secondly, I gladly allow myself to be corrected. State to me the fallacies of my understanding of the fall of man, and why they are incorrect (possibly citing Biblical references and external commentary), and I will seriously reconsider my position.
What about my statement do you disagree with, exactly?
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by satchel (user info) at 2004-03-24 13:44:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"In my opinion, the vaccuum of leadership that men leave in their relationship with their women is the sole reason for the feminists movement. If men were doing what they were supposed to be doing, women would have no reason to usurp man's God-given role as head of the household."
How very Taliban-esque.
Sorry Jinky, but I have no desire or intention to "submit" myself to ANY partner in a relationship. Feminism, as I see it, is way of ensuring that women have a choice to be whatever they want to be, be it a stay-at-home-mom, politician, doctor, teacher, married, single or living in sin ... you get the picture. This is in no way saying that men and women are the SAME, it's saying they should have the SAME rights and responsibilities in society. I would make a very, very bad wife and an even worse mother. That's my choice, and I am so fucking lucky to be able to make it.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-03-24 13:41:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Jinky - Men and women not being identical does not make men superior to women. Yes there are differences between men and women, thanks I've noticed that. My issue with what you said is this business of men doing what they were supposed to be doing leading to women not having a reason to usurp men's God-given role as head of household - that is bullshit. Although, partially right in that men doing what they should be doing would have prevented the necessity of feminism. You and I differ on what that should be. In your opinion men should be ruling over their house like some sort of demigod and in my case, I believe that men should be treating women as equal partners.
This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me resent the hell out of Christianity. Where do you get off telling me that just because I am a women, I am somehow less capable? Sure there are women out there who agree with you, they are a blight on society and making my life much more difficult. This is my issue with housewives. I, not them, am the one out here in the workplace having to overcome these bullshit asinine barriers that their men try to place on real women. I've heard this argument before, "oh we don't degrade women, we put them on a pedestal because we honor them and think they should be above the petty minutia of the world." Well I for one don't want to be placed on a pedestal. I am not weak, I do not need anyone to make any decisions for me, and I'll thank you to get the hell out of my way.
Wake the fuck up, we are not hunter gatherers anymore. Perhaps some of this petty crap made sense when we were out killing the wild beasts that roam the earth for survival, but it is outdated. Fire does not come from the heavens, it comes from Bic. Meat does not come from felling wild bore, it comes from a grocery store. Women are different from men, but they are not inferior secondary models of the human species.
Make your own goddamn sandwich and I'll change my own flat tire.
StrangeDos - I did not say that men could not compete with women on a level playing field, merely that men who were threatened by strong women were so threatened because they know they, themselves cannot compete. Personally I think that men who are threatened by women have tiny balls because if they had a decent pair, they would be man enough to view women as equal without it being a threat to their delicate psyches.
Submitted by Falconer (user info) at 2004-03-24 13:30:08 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Religious death's eh?
'Look Officer, the last thing i saw was Buddah, Allah, and Jesus loading him into their van. There was blood everywhere. I swear i am telling the truth!'
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-24 13:26:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-03-24 11:58:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
Kid Sensation: I'd recommend looking back to Genesis and reading the true story.
Contrary to popular belief, the fall of humanity was not dependent on Eve first taking the bite, but rather of Adam relinquishing "head of household" responsibilities. He failed as "king"--the garden was given to him as dominion and stewardship... where was he when this snake came in and started talking trash about God? (This is hypothetical--he was right there next to Eve the whole conversation), "warrior" (why didn't he give the snake the proverbial finger and tell him to get the heck out of Dodge?), "mentor" (Adam knew exactly how God desired and commanded they conduct their lives; either Adam did not relay this information accurately enough to Eve, or he did not bother to re-enforce this knowledge at the time where it was most needed. Again, he was standing by Eve during the whole conversation with the snake, and yet he said nothing), and "friend" (clearly, he was not looking out for Eve's best interests, as a friend should).
__________
You should really talk to someone who has studyed the Bible before you make an idiot of yourself.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-24 13:23:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Well loki, alot of people believe all the stuff the Bible says. I do and many millions of others do. Christians dont "fall on faith" its like that one guy said earlyer. We just know it to be true. If you dont believe it then just say so and let it be. You dont need to be a part of everything going on. There is no way you can convince some one otherwise when all you do is slam them with all you say.
Try being kind to people and respective of their ideas and beliefs. Life tends to be more enjoyable then.
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2004-03-24 13:21:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Ah, the old 'taking a complex set of spiritual beliefs and moralities and putting them into nice, clinical Freudian categories' idea. Never fails.
Submitted by StrangeDos (user info) at 2004-03-24 13:18:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Enjoy your posts and most of your responses, loki, but you just contradicted yourself in talking about misogynistic beliefs and gender equality as related to the feminist movement. If you think that men can't compete on a level playing field with women, then feminism, or at least your response to its teachings, has gone too far. This is my general beef with feminists today (or at least how they represent themselves).
As for this post, there are many, many more reasons to not be enthralled with Western religions (encompassing Catholics, denominational and non-denominational Christians alike) than the views expressed here. For instance, they are inherently contradictory, even in their own teachings. They tend to lead people to have reactionary beliefs and responses. You get individuals like Pat Robertson coming on national television the day after 9/11 saying that we deserved those actions because America had turned away from God http://www.beliefnet.com/story/87/story_8770_1.html
Incidentally, this has been done to death and now I am too.
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-03-24 13:06:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"This just in....the earth is not flat."
--Roger.
"This submitting graciously business is complete and utter bullshit."
--That is your opinion, to be sure. But there are many of women who would disagree with you 100%.
"A relationship should be a partnership"
--Agreed.
"the feminist movement is not about men not doing their duty, the feminist movement is about equality."
--Equality is not sameness. No matter how hard the feminimist movement tries, they can't make men and women the same. There are very apparent aspects of men and women, physicial, physiological, and mental, that differentiate them. For instance, by nature... by *nature*, the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. By *nature*, the average woman will mentally mature faster than the average man. Just two out of a multitude of differences. "The unisex movement of the 70s proved to be a failed experiment. Men and women bought their clothing from the same racks and used the same public restrooms. It never caught on. The official end of the unisex fiasco came with the release of Dr. John Gray's Book, 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.' The theme of this book is the differences between the sexes. All throughout the book, Gray points out the undeniable truth that it is the acceptance of those differences that results in the best of relationships. [The rest of this article can be found here: http://www.saviodsilva.org/rrr/s23.htm]
I also quote YellowDragon: "Who says people are equal in the first place? It's "common sense" these days, but ultimately who's to say?" If you ask ask nature, it will give you a resounding "no".
"You cannot achieve equality as long as one member of the partnership thinks of him or herself as superior."
--I strongly and absolutely agree with you, here. There is no place in a proper relationship for someone to believe themselves to be superior. I'm talking about roles that the individual is best able to assume and succeed at.
"...Oh yea because you know you can't compete on a level playing field."
--Again, there is no level playing field. even taking God out of the equation, nature has seen to that. And I've nothing of women as a whole; only certain ones. It's the same with men: I've nothing against men as a whole; only certain ones.
Loki, I'm suprised at you. Perhaps it's just because you've never loosed your fiery venom on me personally, but I've always viewed you as an very intelligent, objective speaker. I don't think rhetoric of the sort displayed in your last remark suits you. Definitely no marks against said intelligence, but please, no comments of this sort.
I will reiterate my stance: Equality is not sameness. I consider everyone equal, not the same. There are undeniable differences that make clear the role that either nature or God intended.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by vergedor (user info) at 2004-03-24 12:51:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Quartermain sucks
Submitted by Jocko_Johnson (user info) at 2004-03-24 12:48:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Shitty post.
I hate you, DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-03-24 12:08:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This just in....the earth is not flat. This submitting graciously business is complete and utter bullshit. A relationship should be a partnership, the feminist movement is not about men not doing their duty, the feminist movement is about equality. You cannot achieve equality as long as one member of the partnership thinks of him or herself as superior. Here again, misogyny is keeping you people in the dark ages. Why are you people so threatened by women? Oh yea because you know you can't compete on a level playing field.
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-03-24 11:58:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Kid Sensation: I'd recommend looking back to Genesis and reading the true story.
Contrary to popular belief, the fall of humanity was not dependent on Eve first taking the bite, but rather of Adam relinquishing "head of household" responsibilities. He failed as "king"--the garden was given to him as dominion and stewardship... where was he when this snake came in and started talking trash about God? (This is hypothetical--he was right there next to Eve the whole conversation), "warrior" (why didn't he give the snake the proverbial finger and tell him to get the heck out of Dodge?), "mentor" (Adam knew exactly how God desired and commanded they conduct their lives; either Adam did not relay this information accurately enough to Eve, or he did not bother to re-enforce this knowledge at the time where it was most needed. Again, he was standing by Eve during the whole conversation with the snake, and yet he said nothing), and "friend" (clearly, he was not looking out for Eve's best interests, as a friend should).
So, because of the fall of Adam, sin entered the world. Eve may have taken the first bite, but it never would have happened had Adam been acting as he should have.
In my opinion, the vaccuum of leadership that men leave in their relationship with their women is the sole reason for the feminists movement. If men were doing what they were supposed to be doing, women would have no reason to usurp man's God-given role as head of the household. Now, I want to make it clear I'm not degrading women in the slightest. Among other things, it takes a very strong woman to submit to the authority of a man. Submitting doesn't mean "cowed into being a doormat"; it is an active abdication of power and authority to another.
Loki, hopefully this helps a bit. True Christian dogma directly implicates Adam as the sole bearer of the fall of man.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-03-24 11:33:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Eve sinned"? All by herself, Eve caused the fall of all of humankind? Ask yourself this question, do you honestly believe that this kind of divisive bullshit helps or hurts your cause? Seriously, the misogyny of the Christian right is keeping your people in the dark ages.
Submitted by kid sensation <k1ds3nsation.at.yahoo.com> at 2004-03-24 11:23:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
My 2 cents take it or leave it.
God created man and woman. Eve sinned creating a gap between us and God. In order to become closer to God he gave us his only son Jesus as a sacrifice for us to become closer to God and for us to be forgiven for our sins so we may have eternal life when we die. I came to Christianity late in the game, age 25, and came to it not because I needed it because I stumbled on it. God led me to this path. I accept Jesus as my savior, I read the Bible every night. No big traumatizing thing happened to me to believe or to want this. It just felt right and true. A calling. When you are at your darkest hour, dying, or in a position that you can not get out of, who do you instinctivly call? God! We have all done it throughout our lives. God help me or God save me! It's the Holy Spirit that's in you whether you believe it or not. Read of course the Bible, Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. or even Purpose Driven Life. Great reads that make you think about your own life.
I have more but don't want to go on.
Love you all.
Kid Sensation
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-03-24 09:49:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
People turn to religion for all sorts of reasons. You can't really paint them all with one brush stroke. I believe that religion is often used as a system of control. Look at it like this, if you are say King or somehow the ruler of a society and you want to establish a system of laws and ethics, how do you go about achieving compliance? People are inherently selfish, survival of the fittest, what's mine is mine and what's yours is about to become mine if I'm bigger and stronger than you are. Somehow you have to convince them to give up their own selfish tendencies for the greater good.
Take for example, stealing. Most of us can agree that stealing is wrong (unless of course is a song that you're downloading off the internet and then it's questionable). You issue a decree saying that stealing is wrong because it is a detriment to society. Some people will agree and follow the decree out of altruism. Others will not. How do you enforce it? You could lock up people who are caught stealing or maybe make a stockade and stick them in it to serve as a warning to others, but unless you are willing to establish a police state, you simply cannot catch them all and people will still steal.
You have to find a way to make people believe that stealing is wrong whether they get away with it or not. Basically, you have to override the natural selfish tendency by offering some sort of higher reward. Simply being an ethical person is not enough in all cases so you invent this idea of rewards and/or punishment in the after life. Nobody living can dispute your claims because of the inherent difficulties with communication from the other side.
ergo religion
As for the distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism (assuming that is a word), it's a fairly recent development isn't it? Before the infamous 97 (?) Thesis, wasn't all Christianity Catholicism? Essentially this means that if you are Baptist then yes I'm sorry but you do bear some historical responsibility for the crusades.
Submitted by Shay (user info) at 2004-03-24 09:14:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I belive a lot of the stuff you said, being a catholic that doesn't agree with a lot of the stuff that the catholic religion preaches. However, I just have to say, Christianity isn't the only religion that believes their higher being is a means for comfort and security, EVERY religion believes that.
Submitted by Deisangua (user info) at 2004-03-24 08:51:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What's a registered Christian?
Where does one go to register as a Christian? Can you register as an atheist or jew? Is there a fee?
Submitted by Trout (user info) at 2004-03-24 07:17:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Yep.
Submitted by lush (user info) at 2004-03-24 01:42:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
why
Submitted by modusjoe (user info) at 2004-03-23 22:28:37 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I agree with Yams firmly. You are generalizing all of christianity by what a few people do. Sure, there are many christians, protestants and catholics alike, that aknowledge god with their words but not with their actions. I beleive that that is the single leading cause of athiesm today. But I beleive that much more christians do beleive wholeheartedly in a god. Perhaps if you could refute this statement in any way, then I wouldn't be giving this a -2. If they took a survey, perhaps, where they said "I do not beleive in god." What, are we just supposed to take this proclamation of yours on faith?
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2004-03-23 22:02:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
haha
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-03-23 21:17:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
It..It's all so clear now. Kind of makes you wonder why people have pondered this for 2,000 years when its so blindingly obvious.
Submitted by freebie (user info) at 2004-03-23 21:05:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh great. Yams just reminded me why I keep a low profile as a churchgoer.
Submitted by bargled (user info) at 2004-03-23 20:56:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm not Christian but I think that's just plain stupid.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-23 20:52:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Amen brotha Yams.
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2004-03-23 20:49:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Apparently people still don't realize that there is a bit of a difference between Catholocism and Christianity as a whole. I don't know what the Catholics teach. I'm not Catholic, I'm Protestant. In my church (I'm one of those 20% who attend church services, not MASS, but thanks for making your ignorance apparent), we learn that God lets everything happen. God will bless us, Satan will tempt us, God will allow Satan to tempt us. It is not 'free will.' We have the ability to choose, yes, which will either put us in God's good or bad graces. That's what is taught, and that's what I firmly believe.
Now you say that many Christians aren't even sure what they believe. These are what we like to call "Sunday Christians". They claim to believe in God, the Bible, Jesus, etc., but when it comes down to it, they don't know what they're doing. As a _good_ Christian, I try to talk with these people, challenge them, bring them closer. They give us (referring to the Protestant sect of Christianity as a whole) a bad name, an image of hypocrisy. That's where you get your defiled ideas, I'll wager.
Also, I'm told (by you) that I use God as a crutch of sorts, to make up for some of my insecurities, if I remember correctly. Do I? Really? That's funny, because really all I remember doing is thanking God for everything that is given to me, praying when times are tough, but all the while knowing that something good would come out of whatever was happening to me. Insecurities? Not really.
That's really all I have to say. You did a poor job justifying your argument, using one sect of Chrisitianity. If you wanted to concentrate on the Catholics, you should have made your title, "Why Catholics Believe what they Believe", or even "Why Sunday Christians Believe What They Believe", not "Why Christians Believe What They Believe." There's a huge difference, and you were apparently unaware of it.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-23 20:44:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Those stats may be true. If you had more proof some of what you said might be believable.
Submitted by freebie (user info) at 2004-03-23 20:42:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
OK, I'll bite..
The christians I know do are not religious for personal rewards,
they believe in a higher calling than their own desires.
The church I attend teaches music, has kids activities, supports food drives, responds to regional emergencies (floods, house fires, power outages) and is in general good for the local community.
Take a chance on the positives and leave the negatives for others.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-23 20:41:48 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Thats just chathlics. I dont believe that good deeds get you to heave. the only way to heave is to accept Jesus as your savior and let him into your hart. Good deeds follow if you have done that. but good works are NOT good enuf to get into heaven.
So dont judg the real Christians based of chathlics.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-03-23 20:26:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Shut up ;)