Opinion


Now we have all heard the old canard "Everyone is entitled to their opinion". Well, I guess that's true, but should you have an opinion about everything? Look at the definition "that is not founded on proof or certainty". What if there is proof?

Think about this: How would you feel about someone who honestly and fervently believed the world was flat? You would think they were a little off, right? WHY? Because they hold an opinion in opposition to obvious facts.

So, by definition, one cannot have an opinion when "proof or certainty" says otherwise. What other word can be used to describe a belief that flies in the face of the facts?

Delusion


If you believe something while there is proof / certainity that your belief is wrong, then your belief is not an opinion, it's a delusion.

One can call the Bible a myth, that's a valid opinion. But one cannot have an opinion that Christianity teaches violence, because that's simply not true. The facts are clear that Christianity doesn't, so an opinion on the subject is just as ridiculous as believing the world to be flat.

The problem is that subjectivity pervades even the very definition of "proof" and "facts". I can have an opinion that the "facts" are incorrect. Despite the fact that some things are obviously more certain than others, can we ever be ABSOLUTELY certain of anything? I submit that we cannot, and so that even "facts" that almost everyone agrees on can still be validly challenged by someone with a different opinion.

Certain sections of the Bible (bear with me here, I'm no biblical scholar) could be interpreted as validating violence. Sacrificial passages and episodes of God's wrath touch on these areas. While I personally don't believe that Christianity preaches violence, I cannot say that an opinion which believes so is per se incorrect.

got faith??

The Bible isn't just a book of "DO THIS", it's a historical record. People, places, events...not all have God's approval. Yes, God ordered to killing of the people of Canaan and you know what? I have gone over that until I'm blue in the face and my posts were ignored. There were good reasons for things to go down the way they did, but it's impossible to make someone see that when they refuse to look. So I'll just call a spade a spade and point out delusions when they are posted.

Thanks for your reply.

This is completely off topic. Nothing in my post has anything to do with faith. It's simple logic. No Bible quotes, no affirmations of Jesus' Godhood. Just a simple explaination of what is and is not an opinion.

People are pretty think. Can anyone tell me what happens when you pee on an electric fence?

as i was THICK

To be perfectly honest, I'm not certain if you're agreeing with what I said, or disparaging my post. (Curse the internet's ambiguity).

Like I said, personally I don't think Christianity advocates violence, but I would have a hard time stating that someone who felt that it at least permitted violence in certain situations would be incorrect.

i guess i just see it a little different...

sometimes there is no simple explanation of what is and what is not....hence...faith sometimes comes into the picture.....im not so sure the bible,the Koran, the Kabul, or any other such books are just simple explanations , beliefs...ideas maybe....simple i say nay.....just an opinion.

I've seen to many miracles to put God in the "Logic Box". To see God move you gotta let go of the whiskers.

let's say you never heard of Christianity but you walked into a Christian Church for the first time and saw a big old cross with Jesus nailed to it half naked and bleeding with the look of horror and agony on his face ...

would your first opinion be that Christianity is not about violence or was about violence ....that symbol in itself speak louder than words and help promotes and induce one into the mind frame of violence

I was disagreeing, but not disparaging. You obviously were polite and thought about your answer and I appreciate that. I disagree with your opinion on the subject. (I know what you mean about ambiguity...)

Christianity absolutely allows violence in the defense of life, but aggresive violence and retalitory violence are forbidden.

You would only see that in a Catholic church, the churches I have gone to shows the cross empty. And I suppose you could imagine that Jesus on the cross is a depiction of violence, but after learning that the image depicts an act of self-sacrifice, continuing to believe that the cross is a symbol of violence would be a delusion.

Thanks for the civility.

As for the quoted part of your answer, my concern is that this very statement is an interpretation of Christian writings, isn't it? And who is to say that this particular interpretation is more correct than any other?

All communication has to be interpreted. We interpret to find the original intent of the communicator. By looking at the oldest versions of the documents for accuracy and understanding history as well as properly interpreting the figures of speech, one can determine the communicators intent. The Bible is a lot more straightforward than most people believe. I could go into a lot of details, but there are many facts about the events in Canaan that make it clear to me that there were no other options. The invasion of Canaan is a very complicated subject, it's built up to by the first five books of the Bible. Events are discribed, motives are explained... I don't deny that on the face, the invasion of Canaan look terrible, but if you look at the facts and read about the invasion in context, you see that God was taking the best of the options left to him.

Regardless of how meticulous you are about determining intent, my personal belief is that you can never be 100% certain of the intent of something like that, particularly something text based which is passed along throughout generations and possibly altered. Therefore since there cannot be 100% certainty, there is the possibility for varying opinions.

But that's just my...opinion. Hah.

why would it be delusional since even the story behind the cross is one of violence and the cross in it depiction of an agonized nearly nude Jesus is displayed for children to view ...and christianity even teaches that in the end Jesus will come to committ violence

statements like this:
christianity promotes violence (because a few fundamentalists or because of ancient mistakes from the Church which already have recognized and apologyzed)

it's the same as to say:
all germans are racists (because of Hitler)

Or?
all southern caucasians are racists (because of KKK).

Again fundamentalist views based upon ignorance and misconceptions.

Ignorance can be tolerated, misconceptions cannot because they come from wrong actions within christianity (fundamentalism).

Again if all christianity were fundamentalistic i would be the first non-christian.

I guess this would come down to how you define "Christianity".

Christianity is ultimately a faith in the Biblical doctrine or the Old Testament couple with an additional belief in New Testament. It's a belief that the entire Bible is the word of God.

Then the question can, and must, be asked, "Does the Bible teach violence?". The answer to that question is a resounding "Yes!". There's no getting around it. This is a huge problem with the religion because most of the bigotry and hatred comes form the Old Testament, not the New.

I've stated it many times; If I could worship Jesus as a God and chuck the Old Testament in the trash can I'd still be a Christian today. The truth is that this is not possible

You want to talk about truths there a truth for you. Jesus cannot stand alone. At least not as the savior of mankind who died to pay for the sins of man and who has the power to offer the gift of eternal life. Without the Old Testament to stand upon Jesus is reduced to just a man. Just another Buddha. Not sent by God. Not born of a virgin, and most certainly don't able to pay for the sins of man through his own death.

The fact of the matter is that the Old Testament teaches bigotry, hatred, and religious intolerance.

That's a fact, not an opinion.

The bigotry against homosexual comes from the Old Testament not the New.

The resistance to the scientific discover of evolution comes form the Old Testament, not the New.

The discrimination against non-believers comes from the Old Testament originally. It's true that this aspect of the Old Testament is rehashed in the New, but not by Jesus.

Many Christians would love to make the religion "All about Jesus". In fact, they try extremely hard to do just that. But the fact of the matter is that Jesus cannot stand alone. Jesus stands entirely upon the shoulders of the Old Testament and the God of Abraham. It is even written that he said that he did not come to change the law of that ancient doctrine, even though he actually tried.

I had not choice but to abandon the religion for this very reason Spider.

I can't emphasis enough how great a Christian I would be if all I had to do is stand up for the moral teachings of Jesus (which aren't hardly any different at all from the moral teachings of Buddha I might add).

But if supporting the teaches of Jesus means that I must also support the bigotry, hatred, and ignorance of the Old Testament then forget it. It isn't worth the trade-off.

Clearly there are immense problems with the religion overall. Taken as a whole it has extreme problem. Problems that I have personal concluded are insurmountable. As a whole, the Old and New Testaments simply aren't compatible. Jesus cannot be the God of Abraham, the personas aren't even close.

I had to make a choice. I could close my eyes to the inconsistencies of the biblical stories and become a "Designer Christian". This was basically what Free Methodists have done as well as many other denominations of Christianity. They just try to ignore the inconsistencies and try to preach Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.

But I couldn't do that because I knew it wasn't right. Preaching the moral teachings of Jesus is Great, but those same moral values were taught by Buddha, Krishna, and others. Yet the overall doctrines associated with those other moral teachers aren't riddled with the bigotry and hatred like the story is Jesus with the dark cloud of the Old Testament hanging over him.

In short, you can't rip Jesus out of the biblical picture. You can't save Jesus from the Old Testament. It's not doable. Many have tried and failed. Myself included. Isaac Newton also attempted to salvage Jesus from the Bible and finally conceded that it's not possible.

I think a lot of "Christians" would love to salvage Jesus from the biblical picture, but it can't be done because the whole idea of the crucifixion depends on the persona of the God of Abraham before it can even have any meaning at all.

As soon a Christian says. "It's all about Jesus", all they've done is shown that they are completely delusional and refuse to look at the whole picture objectively. They're hung up on Jesus and basically ignoring the serious inconsistencies that exist in the larger picture of the doctrine as a whole.

A large problem with many "Christian Religions" is that they are truly trying to build a religion based on Jesus alone. But ultimately it can't be done because they can't pitch the Old Testament, so the bigotry, hatred, and religious intolerance will forever plauge them.

This is the reason I abandoned the religion.

Plus the fact that it can't possible be true. And the myriad of reasons why it can't possible be true are all associated with this kind of self-inconsistency and rampant contradictions. The very crucifixion of Jesus can have no significance without the black cloud of the Old Testament to give it meaning. The doctrine must be taken as a whole, otherwise it can have no meaning at all.