Creationism Vs. Evolution Debate - Nye Vs Ham

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by AcGold

very true. Many people call themselves Christians yet act very unChristian while many atheists don't know what it really means. The religion is so massively flawed that it is not fair to equate a true Christian with the religious group.

I'm not an atheist but I am a-religious, the problem I have is atheists often equate anyone not on their side with the religious while I think the very word religion doesn't have much to do with important philosophies and spirituality upon which they are founded. If anything religion should go, they are as corrupt as the government and often don't follow their own tenants. I'd like for atheists, extremists and everything inbetween to band together against the hypocrisy of religion. Even if you are atheist the idea of forgiveness and the golden rule are worth living by.

A-religious? Haven't heard that label yet.
So..The Golden Rule? Is that the do unto others as they do unto you rule?

Sorry didnt mean to pick on you.

[AcGold]

Yeah that's the golden rule, and I didn't know what to call it. My family is religious but if I ever go to church it's just nonsense, they don't talk about anything meaningful most of the time and I sit there thinking; this guy better not be raping anyone after this

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by AcGold

very true. Many people call themselves Christians yet act very unChristian while many atheists don't know what it really means. The religion is so massively flawed that it is not fair to equate a true Christian with the religious group.

No true Scotsman fallacy? I don't think the problem here is with specific religions, or even religion in general. The problem is in the transitory nature of what "religion" has come to mean in the past 200–300 years or so. Before the colonisation of North America, religion was a pretty static term that people understood to mean a combination of things, which were somewhat universally applied. Now? Not so much.

So, what is a "true Christian"? I would be very interested to hear your opinion of this, as an outsider, how we distinguish between regenerate and hypocrite.

Originally Posted by AcGold

I'm not an atheist but I am a-religious, the problem I have is atheists often equate anyone not on their side with the religious while I think the very word religion doesn't have much to do with important philosophies and spirituality upon which they are founded. If anything religion should go, they are as corrupt as the government and often don't follow their own tenants. I'd like for atheists, extremists and everything inbetween to band together against the hypocrisy of religion. Even if you are atheist the idea of forgiveness and the golden rule are worth living by.

So, am I to understand that you equate religion with ethics? That seems odd to me. Like above, I am interested to know your definition of "religion" in order to gain a better understanding of what it is you are getting at more precisely in your posts.

[AcGold]

Ethics/morality, philosophy and spirituality are what it should be about. A true Christian in my mind forgives people for the hurtful things they do, has empathy for everyone, treats others as they would want to be treated, humbles themselves, exalts no man, their purpose in life is to leave the world a better place after they are gone, aligns the core of their being with good and does not judge others.

As far as the idea that you must worship Jesus to go to heaven I don't know, no idea if heaven is a thing or something completely different than the cultural consensus. If you judge people for their believes or condemn them as inherently bad you aren't being Christian. I will defend Christians because the I've seen first hand the good they can do if they are truly Christian (e.g. going to help rebuild homes in New Orleans on their own dime, unannounced for more than 3 months)

[troutman]

There is no good deed a "true Christian" can do that anyone else could not do.

[AcGold]

that's not true, because if you are doing certain deeds then you are acting in a Christian manner. It's a state of mind, not a title you get from rituals or rights of passage. The guys name probably wasn't even Jesus, I've been in Church and they've called him other names (e.g. Jehoshua). Don't get caught up in the religion, the rituals or the phraseology, if you are doing a good deed you are acting like a Christian. Many people say Jesus wasn't real, fair enough, but somebody somewhere said it regardless of name, location or date.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by AcGold

that's not true, because if you are doing certain deeds then you are acting in a Christian manner. It's a state of mind, not a title you get from rituals or rights of passage. The guys name probably wasn't even Jesus, I've been in Church and they've called him other names (e.g. Jehoshua). Don't get caught up in the religion, the rituals or the phraseology, if you are doing a good deed you are acting like a Christian.

Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but the bolded sections bother me. If you are doing a good deed, you are acting like a decent human being. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on goodness.

[AcGold]

no it doesn't have a monopoly on goodness, that's not the point. You don't have to be part of a club to be Christian, just like you don't have to be part of a club to be Buddhist. If you practice maintaining balance and avoiding the extremes you are acting in a Buddhist manner, if you forgive people and try to help others you are acting like a Christian.

It's not a religion, it's a state of being based on guiding philosophies that someone somewhere elucidated. Think about it this way; based on the original teachings sitting around in Church listening to a guy talk about nothing isn't Christian, spending your own money and giving people food at a shelter is. The religious organization corrupted an ideology and turned it into an organization based on rituals.

[Kybosh]

Yeah, or you know, I could be acting in a humanist manner. Whatever.

[AcGold]

call it whatever you want, you are focusing on the semantics. It's merely the best consolidation of similar ideologies that is easily presentable. Gandhi is the most prolific, atleast to my knowledge, to present the idea of nonviolent resistence. If you use his ideas it doesn't matter what you call it, I completely understand the resistence from you guys though as so many "Christians" exalt themselves and condemn others and create divisions between people.

[photon]

Yeah the golden rule didn't originate with Christianity and isn't exclusive to Christianity, so I think calling following the golden rule "Christian" is at best inaccurate, at worst arrogant (it's not uncommon for Christians to claim that their religion is the source of all morality and atheists can't be moral).

Better to say acting in a moral manner, because there are other actions that would be "Christ like" that wouldn't be considered moral today, and I don't think there's any moral principle that is unique to Christianity.

[AcGold]

I never said it originated with Christianity, never posited as exclusively Christian and it's about as far from arrogant as possible. Of course there are immoral things originating from the Bible and religion, it was written and created by humans. I get your stance though, there many people in the church that are horribly immoral while there are people that have nothing to do with religion that are saints in comparison.

That being said, the line is crossed when you tell me what I should say, it's not your right and it should not concern you what words I choose to use. I would never tell you what to believe, say or think.

[photon]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I get your stance though, there many people in the church that are horribly immoral while there are people that have nothing to do with religion that are saints in comparison.

That's not my point though, my point is about the implicit message by calling moral behaviour "Christian" that the morality originates with Christianity, when it doesn't. Why call it Christian at all when it's more likely that the morality has been adopted by Christianity from society?

Originally Posted by AcGold

That being said, the line is crossed when you tell me what I should say, it's not your right and it should not concern you what words I choose to use. I would never tell you what to believe, say or think.

Lol wut? First, the words one uses is of concern to EVERYONE, because the only way to actually communicate is to understand and agree on what the words mean. One can use any words they want, but it's easy to choose words that have implications that aren't intended. Hey I can redefine words entirely and use them differently than everyone else, I just can't expect anyone to understand me then.

Second, I never did what you accused me of, my post is directed at words and ideas, at no point did I use the word "you" or tell you what to say, I was giving my opinion on the words and ideas and what words might be better to communicate the idea (which is also useful as restating an idea with different words can clarify if there's understanding).

Finally, it's a little bit funny that you crossed your own line of not telling what someone should say by telling me what I should say. If it's not my right (and it is my right, it's your right to agree or ignore me too), it's not your right either.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by AcGold

A true Christian in my mind forgives people for the hurtful things they do, has empathy for everyone, treats others as they would want to be treated, humbles themselves, exalts no man, their purpose in life is to leave the world a better place after they are gone, aligns the core of their being with good and does not judge others.

I like your description.

Originally Posted by AcGold

If you judge people for their believes or condemn them as inherently bad you aren't being Christian.

I don't agree with the "judging people" part*, because (in my mind) you are essentially saying that no one should judge someone else and that all beliefs should be given equal deference and reverence.

I don't interpret the Bible as being aligned with that thought---indeed, I think that the contents of the New Testament runs counter to that proposition. Clearly, there is a lot of judging that goes on in the New Testament.

Furthermore, if a Christian is to judge the beliefs of, say, a Catholic, an Episcopalian, a Baptist, and a Campbellite as all being equal or the same, then what is point of being a member of any particular denomination? If they are all the same (even when they plainly aren't), what value is there in any of them?


* For purposes of this post, I am making no comment on the "condemn them as inherently bad" part of your post.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by photon

That's not my point though, my point is about the implicit message by calling moral behaviour "Christian" that the morality originates with Christianity, when it doesn't. Why call it Christian at all when it's more likely that the morality has been adopted by Christianity from society?



Lol wut? First, the words one uses is of concern to EVERYONE, because the only way to actually communicate is to understand and agree on what the words mean. One can use any words they want, but it's easy to choose words that have implications that aren't intended. Hey I can redefine words entirely and use them differently than everyone else, I just can't expect anyone to understand me then.

Second, I never did what you accused me of, my post is directed at words and ideas, at no point did I use the word "you" or tell you what to say, I was giving my opinion on the words and ideas and what words might be better to communicate the idea (which is also useful as restating an idea with different words can clarify if there's understanding).

Finally, it's a little bit funny that you crossed your own line of not telling what someone should say by telling me what I should say. If it's not my right (and it is my right, it's your right to agree or ignore me too), it's not your right either.

you are very clever, skilled with rhetoric. I never told you what to say, saying I'm being a hypocrit by asking not to be censored is a little silly.

I unfortunately cannot continue the conversation with you as it appears you are not interested in discourse and feel that whatever I say will be twisted. I truly have no interest in trying to be right but I can tell where this is headed, it was asked of me to voice my thoughts and I did. Where you are fundamentally wrong is that you think I am trying to posit all good behavior as Christian which I most definitely am not. It's one viewpoint, I don't know everything nor did I claim any sense of superiority in morality or ethics.

You should step back and realize many of the assertions you are making of me are just blatant misinterpretations worded in a very rhetorical manner. I make no claim to be superior or know everything and ask for a little more respect when it was asked of me to voice my opinion. While you never addressed me personally it's obvious that it's a cleverly worded attack.

[Kybosh]

I think everyone is keeping things pretty level headed here, but photon is certainly not the only one interpreting your posts in that manner. I'm starting to think that I just don't understand what you're arguing for or against because it doesn't match the text I'm reading.

[jammies]

I'll agree that "acting like a martyr" is Christian, at least.

[photon]

Originally Posted by AcGold

you are very clever, skilled with rhetoric. I never told you what to say, saying I'm being a hypocrit by asking not to be censored is a little silly.

As I said, I never censored you or told you what you could and could not say. Once again, my post where you think this occurred was directed at the words at ideas and didn't mention you at all. You are overreacting to something I never said or did.

Originally Posted by AcGold

I unfortunately cannot continue the conversation with you as it appears you are not interested in discourse and feel that whatever I say will be twisted.

You are the one that said I was trying to censor you, me responding to that accusation is twisting what you said??

The only thing I've done is respond to your posts with the only goal to understand and clarify and give my opinion, I don't think anyone else would say that I'm not interested in discourse and am twisting your words.

Originally Posted by AcGold

I truly have no interest in trying to be right but I can tell where this is headed, it was asked of me to voice my thoughts and I did. Where you are fundamentally wrong is that you think I am trying to posit all good behavior as Christian which I most definitely am not. It's one viewpoint, I don't know everything nor did I claim any sense of superiority in morality or ethics.

I didn't accuse you of claiming superiority in morality and ethics, I can only reply to what you say. This is what you said:

"There is no good deed a "true Christian" can do that anyone else could not do." - troutman

"that's not true, because if you are doing certain deeds then you are acting in a Christian manner." - you

The ONLY point I've been making is classifying certain deeds "Christian" is a misnomer since all those deeds can be be done by non-Christians.

That's it, that's the whole point.

Originally Posted by AcGold

You should step back and realize many of the assertions you are making of me are just blatant misinterpretations worded in a very rhetorical manner.

Which assertions are those?

Originally Posted by AcGold

I make no claim to be superior or know everything and ask for a little more respect when it was asked of me to voice my opinion. While you never addressed me personally it's obvious that it's a cleverly worded attack.

It wasn't a cleverly worded attack, it was a disagreement with your point along with demonstrating that my disagreement was in fact not an attempt to censor you. Unless you think someone saying "I think you are wrong and here's why" is censoring or an attack...

[AcGold]

well you were saying which words to use, which is censorship. In the end it's a silly semantic misunderstanding which makes sense based on how mind-numbingly narrow minded many Christians can be. Stating that acting in a moral manner makes one Christian doesn't mean I think all good deeds stem from Christian ideology. It's just a word, I don't think Christians are perfect, morally superior or deemed as the singular classification of spiritual divinity.

It's just a collection of ideas with many fallacies inherent within the religious organization. In reality you and I probably share similar beliefs if you aspire to be good, that's the important part, not what label gets put on it. There are actual evils in this world, drawing lines between us isn't worth it. I can sense when a post is confrontational and merely wanted to avoid a spiraling conflict over semantics when we probably aren't that different.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Ethics/morality, philosophy and spirituality are what it should be about. A true Christian in my mind forgives people for the hurtful things they do, has empathy for everyone, treats others as they would want to be treated, humbles themselves, exalts no man, their purpose in life is to leave the world a better place after they are gone, aligns the core of their being with good and does not judge others.

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

I like your description.

I like his description too. Unfortunately, it's wrong.

It doesn't matter what you think religion "should be" about; it is what it is, and that is NOT exclusively a matter of ethics. Religion traditionally was about the PRACTICE of communion between the divine and human realm. For the Ancient Near East this meant the performance of sacrifice and rituals. For the Greeks and Romans, this meant devotions of goods to ensure the well being of the gods, in exchange for health and prosperity. Even for the Chinese who were basically non-thesists, this still meant the performance of rites and votives for the dead to ensure one's well-being. In short, religion was traditionally always a matter of PRACTICE, and not consent.

Christianity shifted the definition with its conflation of Greco-Roman ethics and Jewish religious observance. This confused matters considerably, and it makes it exceedingly difficult to communicate about ancient "religion" from a more modern perspective, which is predominantly focussed on matters of worldview and ethics.

Originally Posted by AcGold

As far as the idea that you must worship Jesus to go to heaven I don't know, no idea if heaven is a thing or something completely different than the cultural consensus. If you judge people for their believes or condemn them as inherently bad you aren't being Christian. I will defend Christians because the I've seen first hand the good they can do if they are truly Christian (e.g. going to help rebuild homes in New Orleans on their own dime, unannounced for more than 3 months)

See, here is where the fundamental misunderstanding almost always occurs. Traditional Christianity was NOT about going to heaven. Traditional Christianity was about embracing and celebrating the imminent, idyllic "Kingdom of God" which was expected to arrive on earth in the very near future. The fixation on heaven was a product of medieval Christianity, which embraced a Thomistic worldview, and it was processed by evangelicalism into an individualistic matter of "belief" and in terms of "relationship".