Teaching creationism and burning crosses on students

[Whitney]

whoops i didnt see the same topic existed when i posted this.  My bad >.<

Not a problem...I'm sure there are numerous other repeat topics on the forum.  I just combine them when they are pointed out of I notice it (unless they can't be combined without loosing the flow of discussion).

[LoneMateria]

Yay I made it back to sunny florida in one piece.  The GPS we got for xmas knocked about 170 miles from our trip and it took us an extra half hour to get home.  So it's late and i'm tired but i'm going to respond to your message John like I said I would.  If I am incoherent now just point it out and when I wake up I should be able to make sense of it :eek:

But they aren't the ones who said I am a sinner and need a cure. Yeshua said that. But what was this cure? The cure was His death. Now, you'll have to read it for yourself if you are even remotely interested in that sort of thing but one thing is certain, Yeshua never put the cure in the hands of men. Christians are not responsible for doling out forgiveness and salvation. They have far, far too much of a need to receive it themselves. Any honest Christian will tell you that. But I'm not here to tell that story.

Now were getting into an area I don't agree with.  I'm going to start at the end of this paragraph and work backwards so bear with me.  Christians will do exactly what you say they can't do and say, "I hold here the cure to everything that is wrong in your life".  I understand this is part of your faith ... but it's certainly not across the board.  Evangelicals are notorious for this behavior as well as faith healers.  

Now your interpretation of your holy book is up to you.  If you want to look at it as Jesus (I'm just going to call him Jesus instead of Yeshua since i'm far more likely not to misspell Jesus) died to forgive everything then go ahead.  I'm not going to contend with your view of it.  I'm going to contend that he doesn't have the right to do it.  I can make a long argument for this and if you are interested in what i'm about to say let me know and we can start a new thread even though we are kinda hijacking this one.  

First off I have to make a few assumptions so correct me if they are false.  Everyone has a different view of God and the events depicted in the bible, but for expediency I need to make assumptions here.  So for this portion i'm assuming 1:) you believe Jesus died to remove Original Sin and all future Sins.  2:) Jesus either is God or is so close to God that their words would be identical.  3:) That you have read enough of Genesis and the Old Testament to follow what I am saying.  

Okay lets start with the story of Adam and Eve.  God makes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for whatever reason and then tells Adam and Eve not to eat it.  The talking snake (or Satan depending on your personal views) convinced Eve to eat it and to give it to Adam.  This is considered the moment of original sin when they ate from the tree.  Now was it really a sin?  If they didn't know going into it what was good and evil and they committed this act without that knowledge then why would it be a sin?  And why would God punish all snakes for the actions of one blah blah blah.  Next Part.

Why is it that this Sin gets passed down through the generations that Jesus has to get rid of it?  What kind of immoral/asinine system exists where you are punished for something your father did?  Now fast forward.

Humans have expanded to the dominant race but they all do sinful things and deserve infinite punishment(hell) for the finite crimes they commit (another immoral system).  Jesus appears and says it doesn't matter what you have done or what you will do, i'll get beaten and killed and it will make everything better.  Because for some reason God just can't find it in himself to just forgive people.  Now you have another immoral system, namely, vicarious redemption.  A system where someone else can absolve you of your crimes if they want to and love you enough.  If a man rapes a woman is it okay for his mother to step in and say, "Judge I love my son so much so send me to jail in his place and let him go free"?  No, it's not.  Just like it's not okay for Jesus to do it also.

Anyway Jesus showed up to replace several immoral systems with another immoral system.  Not only does no one have the right to do this, but why would an all loving God allow this to happen?  Why would he absolve you of your responsibility to make amends or stop you from being punished for something  you have done to someone else?  How can he be called loving if he does this?  He absolves people he likes of their responsibilities to people he doesn't like or at least not as much?  If you are raped should your rapist not be punished because someone took his place?  No.

For a true Believer, the day you follow the words of anyone without question is the day you stop believing. I lost my faith when I was about 17 only I didn't know I had lost it because I kept going through the motions. Thankfully, I rediscovered it in full about 10 years ago on my own. I unlearned and relearned everything my dad had taught me. But I did it apart from him. And I learned it the way Yeshua taught it and lived it. That saddest thing to me is this: Those people I learned from initially think I am slipping away. They don't like the fact that I use the name Yeshua rather than Jesus. Or that I am interested in Judaism and the roots of my faith in Israel. I have to defend my beliefs from my own people. Ironically though, I hated my dad before. Now that I have rediscovered the faith I had lost...I talk to him almost every week now. We just don't talk about my faith much.

This is why I can imagine religion as armor so easily. I can separate religion from faith. At least mine. But your gun analogy does work as well! Same deal.

Anyway, I'm up too late. Hope to continue this tomorrow.

John

I've gone on longer then I wanted to >.< so i'm gonna sum this last one up as quickly as I can.

When you start talking about true believers and true Christians I can't help but think of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.  I'm glad you shared your story (at least some of it) here.  I'm sorry that you are at odds with your old friends over this.  Religion is a fickle thing.  As long as people think you are on the same page as them everything is fine.  But if they find out you are not then chaos can ensue.  

I agree that armor works very well, I think gun is just a person taste since I view it more as a weapon in certain peoples hands rather then protection.

I feel we may be getting OT here since this thread is supposed to be about the asshole teacher.  If this is the case I'd enjoy starting a thread about the story of Jesus and discussing it more in depth.

[John_Silver]

I feel we may be getting OT here since this thread is supposed to be about the asshole teacher. If this is the case I'd enjoy starting a thread about the story of Jesus and discussing it more in depth.

Let's do that. Because you raise some very sound concerns. Wow, you are really getting to the meat of it aren't you?

Glad you made it back safe. I'll continue this tomorrow in a new thread called "The Jesus Symposium"

John

[SSY]

This discussion is getting interesting, the whole sin system and the rationlisations people come up with for it have always fascinated me, please do continue this, though perhaps, as you suggested, another thread would be better.

[John_Silver]

But before I go...I read the Scotsman bit. The difference is that a Scotsman is a Scotsman by birth. A christian chooses to be one (or is called to be one depending on who's talking to you at the time). So he can be called out if He doesn't live by the fruit of the Scripture. The Scotsman fallacy is like saying a gay man who's kissed a girl isn't really a gay man. (Actually that last sentance was a nasty set up...just ignore the bait please!)

John

[LoneMateria]

But before I go...I read the Scotsman bit. The difference is that a Scotsman is a Scotsman by birth. A christian chooses to be one (or is called to be one depending on who's talking to you at the time). So he can be called out if He doesn't live by the fruit of the Scripture. The Scotsman fallacy is like saying a gay man who's kissed a girl isn't really a gay man. (Actually that last sentance was a nasty set up...just ignore the bait please!)

John

I'm gonna disagree with you that a christian chooses to be one.  I'd say the vast majority of Christians are indoctrinated since there is an overwhelming probability (something like 99.8% i'll have to find my source again) that you will be a part of the religion your parents are a part of.  Now I know this isn't true for you John but you seem to be the exception, not the rule.  

We can discuss this too in the other thread ^_^

[Big Mac]

I agree with that, LM. I was brainwashed from the crib until I was about 12 about how horrible of a sinner I was and how I was destined for hell with out Jesus and all that other nonsense. Christians are not born that way. If you were to raise a child completely secular and then about age 14 tell them about Jesus, most of them would not take it. Hell, if you started telling them at 18, they'd most likely laugh at you and keep about their business. Religion needs to get people when they are in their young, vulnerable and highly impressionable state to maintain its iron grip on the mind. Kind of like the Matrix.

[John_Silver]

I agree with that, LM. I was brainwashed from the crib until I was about 12 about how horrible of a sinner I was and how I was destined for hell with out Jesus and all that other nonsense. Christians are not born that way. If you were to raise a child completely secular and then about age 14 tell them about Jesus, most of them would not take it. Hell, if you started telling them at 18, they'd laugh at you and keep about their business. Religion needs to get people when they are in their young, vulnerable and highly impressionable state to maintain its iron grip on the mind. Kind of like the Matrix.

Well you'd have to take the up with C.S. Lewis and other perfectly intellectual sorts who "convert" often after leading very successful and fulfilling lives without a god. Not to belabor the point, but to belabor it.

John

[Big Mac]

I agree with that, LM. I was brainwashed from the crib until I was about 12 about how horrible of a sinner I was and how I was destined for hell with out Jesus and all that other nonsense. Christians are not born that way. If you were to raise a child completely secular and then about age 14 tell them about Jesus, most of them would not take it. Hell, if you started telling them at 18, they'd laugh at you and keep about their business. Religion needs to get people when they are in their young, vulnerable and highly impressionable state to maintain its iron grip on the mind. Kind of like the Matrix.

Well you'd have to take the up with C.S. Lewis and other perfectly intellectual sorts who "convert" often after leading very successful and fulfilling lives without a god. Not to belabor the point, but to belabor it.

John

You should read a little closer there, bub, I said MOST. I did not make an absolute statement.

The second part may have seemed that way. I've edited it.

[John_Silver]

You should read a little closer there, bub, I said MOST. I did not make an absolute statement.The second part may have seemed that way. I've edited it.

Fair enough. Accept my apologies.

John

[SSY]

I agree with that, LM. I was brainwashed from the crib until I was about 12 about how horrible of a sinner I was and how I was destined for hell with out Jesus and all that other nonsense. Christians are not born that way. If you were to raise a child completely secular and then about age 14 tell them about Jesus, most of them would not take it. Hell, if you started telling them at 18, they'd laugh at you and keep about their business. Religion needs to get people when they are in their young, vulnerable and highly impressionable state to maintain its iron grip on the mind. Kind of like the Matrix.

Well you'd have to take the up with C.S. Lewis and other perfectly intellectual sorts who "convert" often after leading very successful and fulfilling lives without a god. Not to belabor the point, but to belabor it.

John

Your example does not quite counter Big Mac's hypothetical, as CS Lewis was raised as a Church of Ireland going family, was a Christian, before later leaving Christianity, he had already been exposed and affected by religion in his early years. Therefore he did not convert to Christianity, but reconvert to it, as Big Mac put it, religion already had him in his "young, vulnerable and highly impressionable state"

[John_Silver]

Your example does not quite counter Big Mac's hypothetical, as CS Lewis was raised as a Church of Ireland going family, was a Christian, before later leaving Christianity, he had already been exposed and affected by religion in his early years. Therefore he did not convert to Christianity, but reconvert to it, as Big Mac put it, religion already had him in his "young, vulnerable and highly impressionable state"

So then would this mean he was brainwashed by Christianity from the outset? So why then, once liberated and after discovering how fallacious religion was should he ever want to go back? Certainly Joy's cancer had nothing to do with it. Is that it? I've heard that one before. Maybe you're not saying that. I just got the impression from Bigmac's trite reply that he assumed most Christian's were brainwashed from birth and therefore couldn't change their spots. Like a Scotsman can't.

John

[Whitney]

I read a book called the Question of God  about 5 or 6 years ago that kinda pitted C.S. Lewis against Freud by editing their works into a book.  So, it's been a long time and my memory could be fuzzy but I believe I got the impression that C.S. Lewis was more upset with god than he was an atheist.

I'm not saying he wasn't an atheist...however it does seem awfully common for Christians (esp Christian authors) to claim they were once atheists but when you listen to why they were atheist it sounds more like they were just upset with their religious beliefs or pissed off at god for some reason.  That said...I'm not saying that someone couldn't be a Christian completely dump that belief for staunch atheism then find their way back to Christianity; I'm pretty sure that has happened before (in fact I think it happened to someone either on this forum or another forum I frequent).

[SSY]

I was simply pointing out that the example of CS Lewis, does not contradict the situation as it was put forward, the situation Big Mac talked about, was of a child raised with no religious influences. CS Carol grew up in a religious family, disqualifying him for use as a counter example. I could not tell you the exact reasons for his reconversion, but my own personal inclination would be to suspect he still hung onto a theism influenced view of the world, I shall go no further with that line of reasoning though, for fear of invoking the Scotsman myself.

While we are on the subject though, prayer and meditation has been claimed to alter the structure and function of the brain (though admittedly, I have not seen the studies or papers themselves, merely the associated news mush). As for the brainwashing, most definitions I have seen of it, would in my opinion cover a lot of religious people and their children, but I do not say this would make it impossible for all Christians to change their opinions, but certainly make it very difficult for the vast majority of them.

As an addendum, from the posts you have written which mention the Scotsman Fallacy, my perception is that you might be missing something, either in the character of the fallacy itself, or the manner in which it pertains to your "true believers" comment.

Whitney based edit, yes, the angry at god thing would fall under the umbrella of my theism influenced world view, and I too have noticed the number of Christians who seemingly delight about the strength of their atheism prior to finding the light. As I said before though, the no true Scotsman fallacy is one I am very wary of.

[Big Mac]

You should read a little closer there, bub, I said MOST. I did not make an absolute statement.The second part may have seemed that way. I've edited it.

Fair enough. Accept my apologies.

John

No apology needed. Just pointing it out so we don't get off track over a minor detail.