Belief System
-
Let me preface this article by stating that I do not categorically dispute Christianity, nor categorically disdain Christians. Christianity is simply a belief system, and as such is not deserving of an emotional disposition toward it one way or another. Nor can one lump together the behavior of all people who share that belief system.
I am concerned only with the conduct of the individual. Each individual has his or her own views and acts on them uniquely. Therefore, each individual, regardless of religious affiliation or non-affiliation must be understood by his or her own views and actions, not the views and the actions of the group with which he or she is nominally or doctrinally affiliated.
With this said, what is concerning is not specifically Christianity, but the oppressive promotion of the Christian agenda by some of its adherents. Though this motivates this counterargument, the basis is the assertion that it is not the onus of non-Christians to support their case against Christianity, but it is incumbent upon Christians, if they desire others to adhere to their dogma, to prove their case against non-Christianity. Thus far, in 2000 years, they have failed to do so. In fact, the evidence is stacked against them. To be perfectly accurate, this is not an article presenting a case against Christianity, but an article presenting a case against the case against non-Christianity.
Many Christians start with the premise that their theological assertions are indeed fact and that if others decide not to believe in them and live by them, they need to prove why they are not true. This is of course illogical, though I do not want to get into mixing logic with faith, since faith is ultimately what the Christian argument comes down to. One cannot mix logic and faith, as they are incompatible schools of thought.
Both sides of this argument make this mistake. Christians tend to use logic where it suits them, and leave the rest to faith. Opponents of the Christian position tend to use logic until it fails them or use it recklessly, ignorant of the importance of the paradox to the Christian premise.
In any case, fruitlessly these discussions invariably come to a circular argument. On one side, one cannot prove that God exists and that accepting Christ as oneÂ’s savior is valid. On the other side, one cannot prove this is not true. However, Christians who fall back on this argument as the basis for their own supposed faith are in fact agnostic.
It is doubtful that anyone exists who is not agnostic to some degree. To have faith, one must have some doubt. Without doubt, faith becomes knowledge, and no one knows with certainty even though they may give lip service to this as a demonstration of the depth of their faith. However, if God is really listening she will know the difference.
This is a good time to point out that although these debates typically come down to the contention over the existence of God, the Christian message is a great leap further. According to Christian doctrine, it is not enough to believe in God and be a good person. Additionally one must accept Jesus Christ as one's savior and so on. It is one thing to assert that God exists, it is quite another to make this stretch. Since most people in the West are exposed to no other monotheistic religions, Christianity becomes the official flavor of the Western World, comprising most any who would believe in God and agree with many of the precepts, yet who might not make the additional leap if equally exposed to other possibilities.
This aside, we find ourselves with two modes of understanding, faith and logic, which ultimately butt heads when followed to their conclusions. There is a third mode of understanding which must be discarded unfortunately for the time being. Direct experience is a more reliable method of understanding oneÂ’s universe than either faith or logic. There are three problems with direct experience however.
First, it is severely limited when compared with faith and logic. It limits oneÂ’s knowledge to only what one can experience directly. So, it is naturally combined with either faith and/or logic to expand oneÂ’s picture of the universe.
This is the second problem. One can use direct experience to support an opinion based on faith, or one based on logic equally. We find that humans, for one reason or another, tend to not take direct experience and extend it with logic or faith. Rather, they tend to take a position of faith or logic and support it with their direct experience.
This brings us to the third problem with direct experience. People filter and distort direct experience to harmonize with their belief of how the universe is or should be, based on their position of logic or faith.
It deserves mentioning that logic and faith are not entirely mutually exclusive. However, one or both of them is flawed or incomplete. Therefore, when comparing logic with Christian faith one finds that they can coexist until followed through to their ultimate conclusions about the nature of the universe. For example, both logic and Christian faith will allow that if I drop my pencil, it will fall to the floor. They can even agree that if a person is born, he will probably die. We start to cross into contentious territory when, for example, we discuss what happens after that person dies, or what the meaning of the whole birth/death process was.
So concerning ourselves only with the competing methods of logic and faith, both sides of this debate can agree that the goal is to come upon the truth, which is in fact the concern of both methods. Naturally, for there to be faith, there must be a truth, whether actual or supposed, which is the target of that faith.
In the Christian faith, those assertions come primarily from two documents, two separate origins – the Old Testament and the New Testament. Therefore, we arrive rapidly at the culprit. Despite what a few may assert, admittedly there is no other basis for the faith. Granted, there are other documents and artifacts, historical or otherwise that are important to various churches, but the Old Testament and New Testament supersede them all. Let’s even set aside for the moment that there is no compelling evidence that either of these documents are any more credible than other documents from the same period, documents with predate them, and/or documents with a different geographical and cultural origin.
Having recognized that evangelical Christians are the asserting party, the party asking others to believe something that is not considered by most people (over 2/3 of the world) to be true, we rightly ask then, of all the incredible claims made throughout history, why we should accept this one. The answer is simply that the Bible tells us that we should. This raises the question of why we should accept the authority of the Bible. This is the pincer. The adherent must accept on faith that the Bible is factual, yet what evidence is this faith based on? The Bible is its own evidence. This is a bit like trying to lift oneself off the ground by pulling up on one's own belt loops.
Why then do so many people fall into this obvious trap? The answer is not so far off. This is a long-known persuasion technique. The assertor presents a series of ideas or facts that are highly acceptable, comforting, and/or known to be true. It may even codify them clearly in a way not adequately codified elsewhere. These are naturally well-received. Having presented a series of such assertions, the assertor adds one small thing that would not be acceptable on its own. Since it comes with such a body of good and true notions, it seems petty to refute such a small point. One accepts that if the remaining body is true and good, this additional point must, by association, be true and good as well. Subsequent points are added until the assertorÂ’s alternative agenda is fully established. A telltale sign of this trick is the rule, established by the assertor, that one may not reject any portion of the assertion. One must accept all points or lose the benefit of the package.
Not coincidentally, this is how cults work. They give several ideas that are agreeable and comforting, which followers readily accept. Then they ask followers to accept an idea on faith – a small idea at first. One thinks it is petty to reject this little thing when receiving so many other good things. However, the small thing is followed by another and another. Eventually they add up to a much larger thing, and one looks at it and wonders if one really accepts all of it. At that point, however, one is into the movement so deep, physically, emotionally, and spiritually, that one reluctantly (at first) accepts the questionable ideas so that one can retain the agreeable benefits one has come to rely on.
Also, in order to keep these things, one is often compelled to defend the viewpoint and, in most cases, propagate it. It is against rules not to. To speak out against any portion is to reject all of it. If one has the freedom to examine and question, to accept and reject, one could not have a successful cult movement. Likewise, one could not have Christianity because people would have rejected those portions that don't make sense and/or cannot be proven (or have been disproved), and we would be looking at a considerably different type of religion.
It is, however, important for successful religions to give lip service to their support of examination and scrutiny. This is like the money-back guarantee. It lends credibility with low risk, as few people will take them up on it. It is an odds game. They will gain more people by suggesting that their movement can withstand such scrutiny than they will lose from people actually exercising that right.
Though I do not suppose a nefarious agenda, the Christian model, by design or by chance, applies this same technique. An attractive package is put together, and all the follower must do is accept it. Here, various churches disagree about what exactly the package consists of, but the basic model is consistent. The Bible is full of historical fact and common sense advice. This makes it seem to be true and good. Therefore, when the authors ask the reader to accept a few less credible points, the established trust is leveraged.
Let me provide a tongue-in-cheek example. I assert that you should worship my duck. Do you take me seriously? Of course you do not, I have established no credibility yet. Well, it is not actually I who assert that you should worship my duck, it is Duck's will, but we will come back to that.
Years ago there lived a good man named Martin Luther King, Jr. He spoke of peace and respect. We Duck followers believe in these same ideals. Wouldn't you like to live by these? Of course you would. Well Dr. King espoused the word of Duck. By the way, this is all verifiable. Read about Martin Luther King, Jr. and you will see that he espoused a doctrine of peace and respect, and you will see that what I am saying is true. OK, little is written about his Duck affiliation, but give me a thousand years or so. IÂ’ll edit that into his speeches and writings.
So, if you reject Duck worship, you reject all of these ideals. That sort of makes you a bad person. What's more, you can't go to our Duck summer camp or our private Duck school, so there! By the way, don't let me catch you worshipping other water foul either because my duck is a jealous duck.
OK, Duck knows that you could not possibly live up to his rigid standards, but that's alright. He came up with a plan for this. Doesn't this make sense? See what a reasonable duck he is. You see, when Dr. King was shot he somehow paid for all transgressions of mankind. So, all you have to do is accept King as your savior and Duck will allow you to come to his pond when you die. Yeah, I know this makes no sense. How does his death pay for my transgressions? I don't really get it either, but you'll have to take my word for it. That's part of the deal. If you reject that, you lose all of the peace and respect, don't get to play Duck games with the other Duck worshippers, and don't get to come to the Duck pond when you die. So, come on. At least pretend that you believe. That's all I'm really asking.
Sure, the fictitious duck-worshipping cult is a bit over the top. It is ridiculous to make a point. Why is my duck-worshipping cult any less credible than the Christ-worshipping cult? The two main reasons are the valuation of antiquity, and the popular success of the movement. Christianity has those two powerful persuaders working in its favor.
First, it has been around longer than any of us. People assume that if an idea is old and survived all of these years, there must be something to it. This is of course ignoring the countless examples of ideas which survived for hundreds or thousands of years and we now know to be false. Likewise, it ignores that Christian churches viewed many of these ideas (now known to be fact) as heresy. Also, any facts that would need to be proved or disproved are lost in antiquity, making them safe from scrutiny.
Additionally for various reasons, some religious but most political or military, the movement has gained considerable momentum. Popularity breeds popularity. Truth rarely has much to do with it. Why else would various religions dominate culturally and regionally? Does the truth vary from place to place?
Could it be that some people are right and almost everyone else is wrong? Even if one could derive a consensus among all of the Christian sects in the world, that would still mean that the people in disagreement would outnumber the Fictitious Christian Alliance (FCA) 2-to-1. Are all of these people wrong, or is it possible that there is a variety of ways of looking at or describing the same basic truth? Many Christians discard this possibility, claiming that there is only one truth and that they alone possess it.
Regardless of the readerÂ’s position, he or she should not walk away from this article feeling attacked nor vindicated. It doesnÂ’t seem worthwhile to go back and rehash old arguments, as we are not going to arrive at any new resolution on them. The goal of this article is simply to restructure arguments to frame them in a new way that makes a compelling case for reflection. It is absolutely not my aim to encourage Christians to abandon their faith.
It is perhaps a good idea, however, for all people to take an honest look at their positions (based on logic and/or faith) and understand them from a candid perspective, rather than accepting them for something they are not. Then perhaps those who feel compelled to assert their position as absolute truth, will think better of it. -
Wah so long. Too tired to read further. Not feeling well. Sorry.
-
all of your arguments can be turned and the same can be said of non-believers propagating the fallacy that God does not exist... from freud to mencken to marx to darwin.
while you are concerned about the propagation of Christianity as true, as Christians we are concerned about the propagation of atheism, you cannot fully support your facts as you claim them as well.
True, there is a propagation of Christianity, but you have a choice not to listen if you do not feel that it is correct.
by your title, you defeat yourself. You speak about a belief system, not believing is also a belief system, can you really justify that the belief system you hold to is true and right? You post has also said it all, there is a case for and against, i guess the end of time will tell which of us is right.
maybe you should apply a bit of your own advice and do some soul searching of your own.
lastly, what is your point of posting this in a Christian forum? What do you hope to achieve because it seems to me that you have just posed a whole lot of rhetoric and to what end? This post is your personal opinion, so fine, you have one. Christians may have a different one. So where do you want to go with this? You will always tell us different and we will always tell you different, you don't want to hear us because you say we are illogical, we cannot take your views because we have decided otherwise, we who once were like you, have seen and experienced things that have led us to question the same things you question and have found them wanting. There is something bigger out there for us as Christians and we believe in Him. -
summarise to 2 word
-
just believe?Originally posted by ceecookie:summarise to 2 word
Don't believe?
-
hmm, a powerful but daring post
havent read this kind in a long while -
i Fully agree with Brey. esp the last paragraph. We were once like u but not anymore.Originally posted by breytonhartge:all of your arguments can be turned and the same can be said of non-believers propagating the fallacy that God does not exist... from freud to mencken to marx to darwin.
while you are concerned about the propagation of Christianity as true, as Christians we are concerned about the propagation of atheism, you cannot fully support your facts as you claim them as well.
True, there is a propagation of Christianity, but you have a choice not to listen if you do not feel that it is correct.
by your title, you defeat yourself. You speak about a belief system, not believing is also a belief system, can you really justify that the belief system you hold to is true and right? You post has also said it all, there is a case for and against, i guess the end of time will tell which of us is right.
maybe you should apply a bit of your own advice and do some soul searching of your own.
lastly, what is your point of posting this in a Christian forum? What do you hope to achieve because it seems to me that you have just posed a whole lot of rhetoric and to what end? This post is your personal opinion, so fine, you have one. Christians may have a different one. So where do you want to go with this? You will always tell us different and we will always tell you different, you don't want to hear us because you say we are illogical, we cannot take your views because we have decided otherwise, we who once were like you, have seen and experienced things that have led us to question the same things you question and have found them wanting. There is something bigger out there for us as Christians and we believe in Him. -
As i hav said it b4 and again i would make myself clear I do not categorically dispute Christianity, nor categorically disdain Christians. Christianity is simply a belief system, and as such is not deserving of an emotional disposition toward it one way or another. Nor can one lump together the behavior of all people who share that belief system.Originally posted by breytonhartge:all of your arguments can be turned and the same can be said of non-believers propagating the fallacy that God does not exist... from freud to mencken to marx to darwin.
while you are concerned about the propagation of Christianity as true, as Christians we are concerned about the propagation of atheism, you cannot fully support your facts as you claim them as well.
True, there is a propagation of Christianity, but you have a choice not to listen if you do not feel that it is correct.
by your title, you defeat yourself. You speak about a belief system, not believing is also a belief system, can you really justify that the belief system you hold to is true and right? You post has also said it all, there is a case for and against, i guess the end of time will tell which of us is right.
maybe you should apply a bit of your own advice and do some soul searching of your own.
lastly, what is your point of posting this in a Christian forum? What do you hope to achieve because it seems to me that you have just posed a whole lot of rhetoric and to what end? This post is your personal opinion, so fine, you have one. Christians may have a different one. So where do you want to go with this? You will always tell us different and we will always tell you different, you don't want to hear us because you say we are illogical, we cannot take your views because we have decided otherwise, we who once were like you, have seen and experienced things that have led us to question the same things you question and have found them wanting. There is something bigger out there for us as Christians and we believe in Him.
I am concerned only with the conduct of the individual. Each individual has his or her own views and acts on them uniquely. Therefore, each individual, regardless of religious affiliation or non-affiliation must be understood by his or her own views and actions, not the views and the actions of the group with which he or she is nominally or doctrinally affiliated.
My purpose is not looking for an arguments but a meaningful disscussion
thnk you... -
The way you put it, humankind should be devoid of all emotion because all views espouse a belief system, as such are not deserving of an emotional disposition.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:As i hav said it b4 and again i would make myself clear I do not categorically dispute Christianity, nor categorically disdain Christians. Christianity is simply a belief system, and as such is not deserving of an emotional disposition toward it one way or another. Nor can one lump together the behavior of all people who share that belief system.
I am concerned only with the conduct of the individual. Each individual has his or her own views and acts on them uniquely. Therefore, each individual, regardless of religious affiliation or non-affiliation must be understood by his or her own views and actions, not the views and the actions of the group with which he or she is nominally or doctrinally affiliated.
My purpose is not looking for an arguments but a meaningful disscussion
thnk you...
Since you are concerned with only the conduct of the individual, and that each individual has his or her own views which they are supposed to act on uniquely regardless of religious affiliation, then how are we supposed to have this meaningful discussion that you say we should have because each individual has a view, but it is difficult or impossible to give this view without some form of colouring by experience, by mentorship, by outside sources, by age etc, as we grow older, we see things and understand things differently. So how then I ask again are you supposing to have this meaningful discussion because everything of who we are and our opinions and our views is moulded by experiences and our age. -
As someone has mentioned that "Some Christians display an admirable level of stoicism and morality that far exceeded They emphasize the 'love' message from Jesus Christ and at the same time de-emphasizes the other more problematic aspects of the religion. This types of Christians are by nature pretty hard to offend. On the other hand, some fundamental Christians would be offended by the very existence of us non-believersOriginally posted by breytonhartge:The way you put it, humankind should be devoid of all emotion because all views espouse a belief system, as such are not deserving of an emotional disposition.
Since you are concerned with only the conduct of the individual, and that each individual has his or her own views which they are supposed to act on uniquely regardless of religious affiliation, then how are we supposed to have this meaningful discussion that you say we should have because each individual has a view, but it is difficult or impossible to give this view without some form of colouring by experience, by mentorship, by outside sources, by age etc, as we grow older, we see things and understand things differently. So how then I ask again are you supposing to have this meaningful discussion because everything of who we are and our opinions and our views is moulded by experiences and our age.
To prevent further misunderstanding i shall rest my case.May u be happy...Good Bye
-
As someone has mentioned that "Some Christians display an admirable level of stoicism and morality that far exceeded They emphasize the 'love' message from Jesus Christ and at the same time de-emphasizes the other more problematic aspects of the religion. This types of Christians are by nature pretty hard to offend. On the other hand, some fundamental Christians would be offended by the very existence of us non-believersOriginally posted by breytonhartge:The way you put it, humankind should be devoid of all emotion because all views espouse a belief system, as such are not deserving of an emotional disposition.
Since you are concerned with only the conduct of the individual, and that each individual has his or her own views which they are supposed to act on uniquely regardless of religious affiliation, then how are we supposed to have this meaningful discussion that you say we should have because each individual has a view, but it is difficult or impossible to give this view without some form of colouring by experience, by mentorship, by outside sources, by age etc, as we grow older, we see things and understand things differently. So how then I ask again are you supposing to have this meaningful discussion because everything of who we are and our opinions and our views is moulded by experiences and our age.
To prevent further misunderstanding i shall rest my case.May u be happy...Good Bye -
-
KSM?Originally posted by neutral_onliner:As someone has mentioned that "Some Christians display an admirable level of stoicism and morality that far exceeded They emphasize the 'love' message from Jesus Christ and at the same time de-emphasizes the other more problematic aspects of the religion. This types of Christians are by nature pretty hard to offend. On the other hand, some fundamental Christians would be offended by the very existence of us non-believers
To prevent further misunderstanding i shall rest my case.May u be happy...Good Bye
You have not even made a case yet, seeing as it is you don't have any original thoughts of your own.
FYI, i do not think that fundamental christians would be offended by the existence of non-believers. I think you over generalise. -
This is MC's line lehOriginally posted by breytonhartge:KSM? You have not even made a case yet, seeing as it is you don't have any original thoughts of your own.
>. -
Over 1,000 devotees and community leaders attended an inaugural ceremony at Kong Meng San Phor Kark See Monastery on Friday morning.
The largest monastery in Singapore was commemorating the 100th year since the birth of its late master, Venerable Seck Hong Choon.
During the event, the Singapore Buddhist Federation pledged to continue to foster inter-religious harmony.
Buddhist leaders from five countries took part in the ceremony themed "Gratitude - Connecting Lives".
The late Venerable Seck, who died in 1990, was responsible for developing the monastery, from just two simple shrines to what's now one of Singapore's architectural monuments spanning the size of ten football fields.
The temple is also a popular spot for tourists to visit for an insight into Singaporean's spiritual life.
Speaking at Friday's event, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said religious organisations play a useful role in Singapore's progress by contributing to social causes and supporting national efforts to promote racial and religious harmony.
He said: "We face a real threat of terrorism. Should some terrorist acts happen here, religious leaders can play an important part to calm things down and help restore confidence."
The temple also launched a museum showcasing its history and Buddhist teachings.
The temple says it welcomes all races and religions to take a free tour and learn about its history.
The Buddhist community in Singapore is over one million, the largest among the religions here and it is growing -
Err your point? I think you have the wrong forum.Originally posted by shuiling:Over 1,000 devotees and community leaders attended an inaugural ceremony at Kong Meng San Phor Kark See Monastery on Friday morning.
The largest monastery in Singapore was commemorating the 100th year since the birth of its late master, Venerable Seck Hong Choon.
During the event, the Singapore Buddhist Federation pledged to continue to foster inter-religious harmony.
Buddhist leaders from five countries took part in the ceremony themed "Gratitude - Connecting Lives".
The late Venerable Seck, who died in 1990, was responsible for developing the monastery, from just two simple shrines to what's now one of Singapore's architectural monuments spanning the size of ten football fields.
The temple is also a popular spot for tourists to visit for an insight into Singaporean's spiritual life.
Speaking at Friday's event, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said religious organisations play a useful role in Singapore's progress by contributing to social causes and supporting national efforts to promote racial and religious harmony.
He said: "We face a real threat of terrorism. Should some terrorist acts happen here, religious leaders can play an important part to calm things down and help restore confidence."
The temple also launched a museum showcasing its history and Buddhist teachings.
The temple says it welcomes all races and religions to take a free tour and learn about its history.
The Buddhist community in Singapore is over one million, the largest among the religions here and it is growing -
To neutral_onliner,
Are these your own words to start with? Perhaps, you can summarise the purpose of your thread in lay terms. That will be helpful. -
Hi Neutral Onliner.
Nice post. Thanks for encouraging me to reaffirm my faith.
Cheers!