Christians - A Penny For Your Thoughts.

[TeePee]

Not at all.

You say christianity encorages honesty, and yet this thread was started by a rational person expressing his bemusement that christianity teaches that the world is only 6000 years old. Is that honest? Maybe, if the people believe it, but that doesn't make it any less damaging. This thread has been filled with similar things stated as facts by christians, when they really aren't.

I did not say anyone with faith is weak. I said both faiths, (and this is true of most religions) TARGET the weak. I respect the people of faith who can put down a reasonable argument. People who can't, and simply twist what others are saying I have no respect for.

[fuddam]

Once I had a christian work for me who used to take tuesday or thursday (IIRC) evenings....<SNIP>

in some places of work, people are actively discouraged / forbidden from talking about religion. I have no idea whether that was the case or not in your place of work.

My theory is that it is like a dirty suppressed secret amongst you - like fetishist behvaiour or something - for a discreet minority; it's great fun when there is a load of you in the same room all doing it together but not the kind of thing you talk about too much afterwards

nope. how could there be anything to be embarrassed about when it was publically demonstrated by all the apostles and copious members of the early church?

at the same time, talking about it to a non-believer doesn't really achieve much. It is a facet of Christianity but not one that requires a great deal of publicity.

So....any of you christians willing to publicly admit to having spoken in tongues (even once), and maybe writing a bit about it? fuddam (if you have)......?

sure I have. Started about 2-3mins after I became a Christian. Is communication from the soul. Not all Christians are blessed with that particular gift. It has a public as well as private purpose.

IF it is done in public, the Bible tells us to only do so if it will benefit the public. Simply speaking in tongues in public without a translation is not encouraged. The whole purpose of all the spiritual gifts is to be of public service, eg healing, prophecy, wisdom, etc.

sometimes someone can ask for prayer but they do not speak the same language as oneself. So how then should (I) respond, what should I pray for? Praying in tongues in that instance is a method of addressing the need divinely. I personally would have no knowledge of what I was saying, but the Holy Spirit within me does, and speaks it out in prayer.

Laugh all you want

I know of someone who spoke in tongues at a service down the road from my church, in perfect Cantonese. They had no prior experience of the language, and yet instantly spoke it. They also had no understanding of the words that were coming out of their mouth. Then, someone in the same service who spoke the language translated for the rest of the congregation.

anyone who is able to speak in tongues and yet is embarrassed about it needs some pastoring.

oh, btw, MOST of the Christians I know do speak in tongues, ie it is very common in a church that practices spiritual gifts. A lot of more staid / rigid churches claim the spiritual gifts are of the past, and have no place today. Again, they are seriously without scriptural foundation. As always, one has to come back to scripture, not conjecture from Joe Blogs.

[TeePee]

Many Christians are just like Domestic-Cat-Hater-Guy. They want to contribute their own opinion and spout off a whole load of 'facts' to support it. When asked to provide some kind of evidence to support it, they can't. This is what I have no respect for. It doesn't deserve anything but contempt.

Then we have those like fuddam, who are sometimes more interested in preaching than contributing to the argument.

So why not take this opportunity to tell me why Scientology's beliefs (not the way the church behaves, but the beliefs) are less valid than christian beliefs?

[fuddam]

so many christians believe different things are true, as evidenced by this thread.

clearly Christianity therefore encourages freedom of thought, the right to question, to debate, to differ on interpretation. Sounds pretty healthy to me. Thanks for that

also, it illustrates that no single human can claim to know everything about Christianity, that we are flawed, and that the source of direction should be scripture (divine) rather than human (flawed) - which further illustrates why all those arguments raised about some Christians being paedophiles, adulterers, hypocrites and crusaders (ie flawed), in no way discredits the validity of the Christian message itself. One has to look at the scriptures, not the people, for truth.
TY again.

[fuddam]

Then we have those like fuddam, who are sometimes more interested in preaching than contributing to the argument.

you contribute to the argument? looks more like you invite any opportunity to get personal. Dismissing people as stupid / weak minded / intellectually inferior smacks not of debate but diatribe.............

So why not take this opportunity to tell me why Scientology's beliefs (not the way the church behaves, but the beliefs) are less valid than christian beliefs?

why? do I claim to know much about scientology? If not, why should I venture detailed opinion on it? If it were my area of ministry, that would be a different matter, but it is not.

All that really matters for me is what people say about Christianity, and if they say something untrue, it is my duty to relieve them of their ignorance.

I would, however, actively encourage you to compare scientology with Christianity, scripturally, since that is obviously of interest to you.

Look at
1) historical claims
2) consistency of claims throughout their scripture
3) compare their authors / figureheads
4) ascertain whether the religion is essentially selfish or unselfish
5) discern what the essential message of the religion is.
6) discern whether it is elitist
7) discern whether it is just

etc.

your report in triplicate on my desk first thing Monday morning, please.

[JPreston]

As TeePee points out, you entirely miss the point

...
I did before I posted; you remind me of nothing so much as someone who'd have said (back in the days when the workplace was rather different) "Charlie and me get along fine, he even laughs at my Sambo jokes"...

Except a person doesn't choose their race, and I believe all races to be equally valid.

On the other hand, if someone chooses a belief system that is plainly idiotic then they should really be prepared to have it challenged, or at least be sporting when it is.

So it's not even slightly similar, is it? You can't just arbitrarily set your beliefs as being above question and expect everyone else to play along.

...You, on the other hand ridicule and mock people using the excuse of their faith.

No, I ridicule their faith. You really shouldn't be so precious about it, if you are so sure of your beliefs, why do you not think they are capable of withstanding a little scrutiny?



Taking this debate forward, I'll say my main PC is sadly screwed at the moment (which is why I can't be that active in this thread). Something to do with the IDE devices I think, I have an IDE hard drive that started making the weirdest noises a week or so ago, and a DVD burner that causes BSOD as soon as I put a disc in it and what's worse, after the BSOD the PC won't boot all the way into windows, just more BSODs.

I was at a loss to think what might be causing this, I haven't updated any drivers or tweaked anything recently. So inevitably I've come to the conclusion that my PC is possessed by Satan (it's not baptised).

Would any 'true believers' reading this please do me a favour and pray for my PC, and I'll post back with an update to say if it worked? Alternatively if anyone can recommend any faith-based PC repair services, I'm all ears because I've tried science based remedies like changing IDE channel and fiddling with the BIOS, but they did not help. I think I need a more holistic solution....and prayer works.....doesn't it?

Or, would anyone like to prove that my PC is not possessed by Satan? To tell the truth I'd actually be reassured if I knew I could just reinstall or upgrade my way out of this fix. But I happen to believe it's possessed by Satan.....and all unfalsifiable notions have an equal claim to being true....don't they?

[fuddam]

It's scripturally pretty clear that the point of tongues is to benefit not only the person gifted with them, but the church/congregation as a whole.

agreed on the benefit in the public sphere, but would also say that in private can be a form of praise, of worship, an outpouring of Spirit.

[Byatt]

I'd argue that any belief/faith/cult that requires its followers to engage in dishonesty is inherently less valid than one which stresses honesty. Indeed, I'd also wonder whether an Atheist would regard an ethical framework (a purely secular one) that encouraged dishonesty as being as valid as one that encouraged honesty.

Outside of the somewhat heated debate, I think this is actually quite an interesting question. Coming from the atheist point of view, I'm not sure whether I agree with your use of valid there - one ethical framework is just as 'valid' as any other, it just makes a lot more sense (society wise) to have honesty as part of it.

For clarity - I'm talking about Christianity in the much more sensible nichomach/kalniel sect from here on, rather than young-earth folks.

We can look upon honesty as a 'useful' part of a moral system, but can it really be said that this directly correlates to any particular religion's validity? What I'm perhaps claiming here is that there isn't an objective dipstick to differentiate between the two, in terms of validity at least.

To clarify further, I'm certainly not equating Christianity/Scientology, because frankly Scientology is earning its 'cult' status by becoming a very dangerous organisation.

In fact, Scientology is not a great example with which to lead this question. You could argue that Scientology's active refutation of psychiatry and use of e-meters is as bad if not worse as young-earth creationist guff in making (disprovableish) claims. Thus:

Scientology < Christianity (if you argue that part of the belief system goes against psychiatry)

Take out all the disprovable claims and their validity is equal, from my point of view, but, massive disclaimer attached to this in that the actual Church of Scientology organisation is a perfidious nest of vipers, something which I cannot honestly say of Christianity (with the definition from the top).

[TeePee]

clearly Christianity therefore encourages freedom of thought, the right to question, to debate, to differ on interpretation. Sounds pretty healthy to me. Thanks for that

The fact that they believe different things doesn't mean they are encoraged to. The fact that those who come to christianity later in life are apt to believe less of it, shows the reverse is true.

also, it illustrates that no single human can claim to know everything about Christianity, that we are flawed, and that the source of direction should be scripture (divine) rather than human (flawed) - which further illustrates why all those arguments raised about some Christians being paedophiles, adulterers, hypocrites and crusaders (ie flawed), in no way discredits the validity of the Christian message itself. One has to look at the scriptures, not the people, for truth.
TY again.

Your argument defeats itself. Just because some individuals are flawed doesn't mean the scientific establishment is.

What makes your scripture better than any other? The christian message isn't about paedophillia in the same way that the message of scientology isn't lying to outsiders.

[nichomach]

Not at all. You say christianity encorages honesty, and yet this thread was started by a rational person expressing his bemusement that christianity teaches that the world is only 6000 years old.

Well, his bemusement was (you should pardon the expression) fundamentally misplaced; as has been stated repeatedly in this thread, that's a belief held by a minority of Christians who interpret Genesis as literal. The majority interpret it as allegorical.

Is that honest? Maybe, if the people believe it, but that doesn't make it any less damaging.

Well, the majority of Christians don't; those that do, and honestly state it, probably are not any less honest with other aspects of their lives.

This thread has been filled with similar things stated as facts by christians, when they really aren't.

Well, we state what we believe to be true; can we prove all of these scientifically? No, certainly not, but then we don't believe that something has to be capable of scientific proof, or even scientific explanation, to be true. Again, we're back to the frame of reference point.

I did not say anyone with faith is weak. I said both faiths, (and this is true of most religions) TARGET the weak.

Hang on, I'll get a pin and an abacus - who brought the angels? Seriously though, I've been a Christian for some years, and I didn't come to it at a point of weakness in my life, I wasn't raised or indoctrinated with it, and while I can only speak for my own church, I don't see us "targeting" anyone. Personally, I think that all the Christians I've seen welcome anyone, strong, weak, rich, poor.

I respect the people of faith who can put down a reasonable argument. People who can't, and simply twist what others are saying I have no respect for.

Unfortunately, your idea of a "reasonable argument" is any argument that fits your belief that if it doesn't have a scientific explanation (I use explanation rather than proof in light of your previous post objecting to the latter term) then it isn't true/doesn't exist. It's a classic begging of the question; you're demanding proof/evidence that you're wrong, but the only proof/evidence that you accept is that which fits within a framework that assumes you to be right.

[Byatt]

On the other hand, if someone chooses a belief system that is plainly idiotic then they should really be prepared to have it challenged, or at least be sporting when it is.

Another interesting question, if reduced to the following: Do you think it is a choice to have faith?

[fuddam]

The fact that they believe different things doesn't mean they are encoraged to. The fact that those who come to christianity later in life are apt to believe less of it, shows the reverse is true.

not sure where you get that factoid.......?

would be hard pressed to know of anyone who I can point to in that regard. You have me mystified.

Your argument defeats itself. Just because some individuals are flawed doesn't mean the scientific establishment is.

I assume I'm being too literal here, but then I am rather stupid: I agree with you that the scientific establishment is not indicted by the flaws of some individuals.

What makes your scripture better than any other? The christian message isn't about paedophillia in the same way that the message of scientology isn't lying to outsiders.

well, without referring to any other religion in particular:

1) its quintessential message of love
2) the grace shown to the individual
3) its wholeness & completeness
4) its pertinence to every facet of life
5) the respect shown to the individual's choices
6) the respect shown to the value of all individuals
7) the changed lives
8) etc

it all comes back to the Lurve. Groovy baby. That's all aside from the living relationship I have with Him.

[fuddam]

Another interesting question, if reduced to the following: Do you think it is a choice to have faith?

difficult question, but ultimately yes.

but NOT a blind choice. One based on evidence.

Teepee and many others refuse to accept the following assertion, but ALL people live on faith. Teepee's faith is in science. It is his ideology.

[TeePee]

Look at
1) historical claims
2) consistency of claims throughout their scripture
3) compare their authors / figureheads
4) ascertain whether the religion is essentially selfish or unselfish
5) discern what the essential message of the religion is.
6) discern whether it is elitist
7) discern whether it is just

Let me give you the abstract.

1)
Scientology - Paralysed people blown up in volcanoes. DC-8 Space planes. Implausible, evidence to contrary.
Christianity - Earth 6000 years old, fosils there 'to fool us'. Implausible, evidence to contrary.


2)
Scientology - Very consistent. Centralised church beams out 'the message'.
Christianity - Very inconsistent. Bible a mass of contradictions. Followers pick and choose what they believe.


3)
Scientology -
L Ron, 'The worlds most published and translated author'. John Travolta. He's a pilot, and they're smart, right?
Christianity -
The Pope. Former Hitler Youth.
Jesus. Evidence strongly suggests he was ficticious/allegorical.

4)
Scientology -
Let's be honest. It's a scam.
Christianity -
Massively selfish. It's about protecting and helping one's own group while persecuting outsiders.

5)
Scientology -
To help followers attain spiritual awareness and become more effective people in the physical world.
Christianity -
To 'accept christ' to save you from hell when you die.

6)
Scientology -
Massively so. Hiracheal structure.
Christianity -
The religion is in some ways. Some people have a gift of 'tongues' and some don't. Some churches are, some aren't. It depends on interpretation.

7)
Scientology -
Partly injust. Everyone can benefit equally through having cleared their Thetans(tm). The religious message is just. But people are basically scammed for a lot of money. The rich go further at the expense of the poor. So the church is injust.
Christianity -
Worse. You can be a great person, kind and generous, but if you don't follow the religion, you go to hell.


Scientology Wins 2, 5 and 7.
Christianity Wins 6.

[JPreston]

in some places of work, people are actively discouraged / forbidden from talking about religion. I have no idea whether that was the case or not in your place of work...

Depends on whether I chose the subject or not

Seriously though, the only reason that religion is discouraged as a topic for discussion is that companies don't want to be open to accusations of prejudice or favouritism. I'm sure you'll agree that it would be better if people could publicly talk about religion in the same way they can politics - everyone is expected to have political views (at least, all adults are and children are left alone to work things out for themselves when they are older), and everyone is expected to be able to justify their political beliefs when challenged.

But religion has some kind of special status such that it must not be challenged (see how irked some of the christians are getting in this thread...) , it must be drummed into children from birth, it must be believed without question, etc. That's medievel thinking that harms us all.

Hey, I reckon we agree on that point albeit obviously from polar opposite angles, and in that sense we share more common ground than the rest of these 'vicar of dibley' christians

...sure I have....Laugh all you want

No not at all, I respect you for sticking your neck out there, and I did ask for a few lines explaining what you get out of it so cheers

[TeePee]

Teepee's faith is in science.

I don't dispute this. I have faith in evidence, logic and reasoned argument.