Many Christians Lack Responsibility

I'm not sure if you added this part to have it replied to at all or not. I just want to point out that pretty much everyone has some entire aspect from when they were raised that is laughed at and denigrated by many people. Does this upset you? It really shouldn't. There are lots of people who make fun of stuff just because it's different. The only thing that should upset you is if there is any validity in those jeers. The only way to assess such validity is with an objective view of the Christian mindset you were raised with.It is possible you were raised with a Christian mindset that is very damaging.
It is possible you were raised with a Christian mindset that you should be very proud of.Only an objective analysis of your childhood memories will give you the answer, if you're interested. Yes, of course it does. Anytime you let go of your personal responsibility you are abdicating your personal responsibility. The question is whether or not such a thing is okay. Are you supposed to let go of your responsibilities because God tells you to? Why would God give you responsibilities, and a brain capable of identifying those responsibilities, if He didn't expect you to deal with them? These are questions that are up to you. What do you honestly think a creator-God would want you to do with your intellect? Again, of course it is, there's no doubt about it. The question is whether or not such an abdication is okay. Just be honest with yourself. If you're having company over, and your house is a mess, do you clean it up regardless of where the mess came from? Do you think we should do what we can to improve this world before Jesus comes back? Personally, I don't think Jesus exists at all and that we all have responsibilities to keep this world as tidy as possible just because we're lucky enough to exist here. But even if I did believe in the Bible, I don't see any major messages in there about giving up and letting things go their own way. I don't want unquestioning, obedient servants. Am I better than God? Why would God want something petty and useless?
If the God of the Bible exists, then our mature and rational abilities would be gifts from God. I'd think that God would want us to use the gifts He gave us to be as benevolent as we can. I certainly don't think He'd approve if we ignored such God-given talents.
Again, I don't think God exists. I think we should be mature, rational thinkers for a calling that is higher than any deity you can even imagine... because being mature and rational is the best method we have to increase benevolence throughout this existence. But if a God actually does exist, I still see no reason for blindly following Him. If He's worthy of being followed, He wouldn't want any such thing anyway, because it's worthless. To follow a God "just because He created us" or "just because He's all powerful" is immature, cowardly and absolutely devoid of any respect or honour.Let's say you're a god. I now dub you Phat - Lord of the Ants.
Which ants would you be interested with? Those who used what you gave them to grovel at your feet? Or those who spread your message of peace and love with all the faculties you provided them with? If those ones far away spreading your message began to have doubts, would you rather have them stop spreading the message of peace and love to come back and make sure you were still on the throne? Or would you be interested in those who continued professing peace and love without even caring about your status in the kingdom? What about those who said it didn't even matter if you existed at all, yet continued to spread peace and love wherever they could? And, most of all, what about those ants that aren't even from your colony, never heard about you, and even laughed at the idea of "a giant's" existence?. If those ants began professing the message of peace and love without any input from you whatsoever... would you at all be interested in them? Where would they fall on your "these are some good ants" scale?What's important to you, if you were a god? Your popularity amongst some ants? Seeing the results of your power being swept over the anthills? Watching some ants fight to "defend your honour?" Or the spreading of a message that transcends even your divine powers?Edited by Stile, : I don't now what I was thinking

Wow. I knew you were a bit off your rocker, Mike. But I never thought it was because you're likely in a cult.Oh, don't worry, I'll back up that statement. Because that's what people who are honest and rational do. They don't just say things, they actually show why the things they claim are actually true:How to Identify a Cult from: Christian Courier

quote:

---

(1) Cult members are "focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment."

---

Huh let’s see what you said about yourself: Excessively zealous? ...check. (seriously... I command you? )
Unquestioning commitment? ...check.
Living leader? Not sure. Doesn’t Christianity believe that Jesus is still alive? Likely your pastor is alive, anyway ...probably check.You seem to fit the first test like a glove. I certainly couldn’t come up with a better description of how you’ve presented yourself.Let’s try number 2:

quote:

---

(2) "Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged," and there can be pressure or social punishment when there is disagreement with the "boss."

---

Okay, let’s see what else you have to say: Discouraging questions and doubt? ...check.
Social pressures for disagreement? ...check.Uh oh, 2-for-2 Mike. Well, maybe things will start to look up. Or, more likely, maybe your views will finally be seen for what they actually are. Let’s move forward.

quote:

---

(3) The leader "is preoccupied with [raising] money."

---

Good job, Mike! Nothing at all about money in your post. Well done. Of course, if Phat did "turn back to you," would he be expected to tithe? Regardless, here you’ve escaped this aspect. 2-out-of-3 still doesn’t seem so swell, though. Moving on:

quote:

---

(4) The cult leader generates within his members "a polarized" mentality. His people evolve an us-versus-them outlook.

---

eep. Head’s up, Mike I think you’re about to gain another point for being a cult, let’s see: Polarized mentality? ...check.Sorry Mike, 3-for-4. That’s 75% cult now. Ouch... let’s see what’s next:

quote:

---

(5) The cult leader has a clearly defined anti-authoritarian disposition.

---

Huh, not sure we can check this one, no one’s accusing you of being a cult leader, just a cult member. We’ll have to ignore this point until (if ever) further information is obtained.

quote:

---

(6) Cult members are seen occasionally to take on a new personality. They begin to act differently. They become increasingly antagonistic to family members and long-time friends. They may even boast, "I am not the old [name] that you used to know; I am a new person now."

---

Well, this isn’t going to end well, this one hardly even requires quotes. This is pretty much the only thing you ever say. But, just to be thorough: Antagonistic to old friends? ...check.
Professing becoming a new person? ...check.And, there we have it. A score of 4-out-of-5, matching 80% of the warning signs pointing towards Mike being part of a cult.Mike, take a look at how damaging and evil the statements you’ve made actually are. Just because you profess to have the Bible and God on your side doesn’t mean that everything you can say to defend them is "in the name of good." Unless, of course, you’re going to define "good" as something useless and obviously corrupt as "whatever God says, just because He said it." But that’s an argument that can be destroyed in other threads. Such as this one, for anyone interested: Message 1

Again, as with almost every single phrase you write, you assume too much.I didn't post that message to say something to you or Phat, I posted that message for the same reason I post all my messages here at EvC: in order to display truth to those who read these forums in search of honest information. I certainly did use your name quite a bit, but that was for mere humour's sake. The thread needed some lightening up after the dark cloud you accosted it with.It matters not what your purpose for writing the message was. You did write it, and you did post it in a public forum. Someone needed to show how damaging it is before any other innocent searcher happens across it and mistakes any of your flimsy claims for actual honest truth.

Innocence concerns itself with law, it has nothing to do with whether God exists or not since laws exist regardless of God. Innocent has the same definition "under atheism" as it does "under theism," whatever that would actually mean. Because Jack's morals will get you killed, and my morals are from a firm foundation in reality that results in a benevolent, objective method to dealing with other people. You can build a society on that, and people have.Everyone knows that a firm, objective foundation in reality has a higher moral ground than a subjective or authoritative (by Jack, or even divinely so) system. I never judged your experience with God's presence. I judged your entire post as being cult-ish, and I showed how it was exactly that. Your experience may or may not be true, I don't really care. What I do care about is if you can actually show that it was, indeed, God's presence you felt and not something else. I am unaware of a human who is incapable of making mistakes. I'd never doubt that you'd mean what you say. Thanks for the sentiment, but I assure you that I have already flourished in the spirit much more than anything I have ever heard described by anyone else (even you, even here). Such things do not necessitate divine assisstance in my experience.

Heh... no, He told me He doesn't work through me I mean, um... that's what He said after showing me He doesn't exist! Wait... Eeep! (I think "Eeep" shall be my new favourite word for a while...)

Sounds like some very wise advice. Not only should it be used for your pastor, but for anything anyone says. ...oh. Perhaps not-so-wise. Why not doubt the Bible? After all, if it is true, then those doubts can only lead to deeper understanding of the truth and therefore a higher confidence in the Bible, right?Of course, if there are some things that people do not want to have questioned in the Bible.. let's say maybe 'cause there's no way to honestly defend some of the Bible's positions in reality... that would be an almost inescapable motivation for promoting the Bible as unassailable.Regardless of why, though, there is no rational reason to suppress doubts about anything if those things are capable of standing on their own honest truth in reality.In fact, because religion can become so important and involved in every aspect of life... it is quite reasonable to say that everyone has a responsibility to question all aspects of their religion (including their pastor/leader, Bible/Holy Book and God/deity) until they are personally satisfied with the answers. (And many Christians do exactly this). As long as you preface it with "I believe..." I wouldn't think of asking you to "prove it." You are certainly free to believe anything you'd like. You are also free to use those beliefs to shape how you live your life. The only think you are not allowed to do, is use those beliefs to shape how other people live their lives. However, you don't seem to be doing that at all, so I have no quarrel with you

Fair enough. I think I jumped to a conclusion from "always rely on the Bible" to meaning more of "always rely on the Bible without ever questioning it." It seems my jump was not justified, in this case. My apologies. A very good answer. Not the best (only in my personal opinion). I think that even those who rely on the Bible should be able to accept that perhaps the Bible doesn't have all the answers. To me, one source (any single source) for "all the answers" is a naive position, I think the world/universe is so complex and wondrous as to make it impossible for any solitary authority (whether mundane or even divine) to have all the answers. That would take all the fun out of things But, regardless of my own feelings, this is still a very good and acceptable answer as it does include the responsibility of doubt. I almost completely agree. I would simply change the ending of your sentence:"I believe atheists usually end up so because they doubt religions and their claims, and so finding no sufficient truth's in these, they are left with atheism."To me, atheism isn't so much a choice, as it is a default position I am forced to accept after an honest exploration of the facts and my inner-self. It's not that I want to be an atheist, it's more that I have yet to find any convincing evidence to be anything else.My internal sense of responsibility does not allow me to make important decisions such as those concerning my entire life (eternal or not) and the lives of those around me whom I love with information that cannot be validated to the highest possible degree.This may be honourable, or it may be my downfall (given an evil deity). But it is me, right or wrong, it's who I am and I cannot live while denying that which I feel is the highest of priorities.I suspect that this is exactly the same reason why Christians or any other theists believe what they believe. It's also why I respect those positions (like Phat's) that honestly look at the information they have, and then make an honest decision from there. As long as we proceed through doubts and honest reflection of one's own experiences, I'm not sure how anyone (even a deity) could justifiably fault us.

Just thought I'd point out some food for thought:I'm an atheist, I doubt materialism, and I am not going to turn to theism as a result.I doubt materialism as much as I don't think anything can be 100% absolute as long as we don't "know everything," which likely will be forever.I never did understand how "not knowing things" can be taken as a "reason" for believing in deities. It just doesn't make sense to me. Even if it is one day shown that a "supernatural realm" does indeed exist, this says nothing about the existence of actual deities, or any being that explicitly cares about our "non-supernatural realm", and definitely not anything as specific as the Christian God of the Bible.The validity of materialism has no significant rational bearing on the existence of an Earth-caring or universe-creating being.

This is a strange area.I would put atheists into two main groups as well. Those who do not adamantly deny a God, and those who absolutely, 100% do.However, Dawkins is not a "Hard core" atheist. Dawkins (as far as I know) does not adamantly deny the possibility of the supernatural as much as he does not adamantly deny the possiblity of anything else we have no validated evidence for.Dawkins does, however, stress that the things we have no validated evidence for likely do not exist.We have no validated evidence for pink unicorns, ghosts, goblins, fairies, speghetti monsters, anything else I can imagine at will, and deities.Dawkins' "evangelization" isn't so much a promotion of atheism as it is an exasperated, it's-about-damned-time-someone-said-something-to-these-people, defense to all the religious promotions that exist in our modern day.Dawkins is only stressing that "God does not exist!" in response to the multitude of social outlets that adamantly state, or even implicitly assume (with no good reason to) the contrary.It is akin to someone finally coming out and stressing that "Goblins do not exist!" in response to a multitude of social outlets that continually espouse the existence of goblins (if such a thing actually happened).The liklihood that any specific religion is absolutely wrong is staggering. It's exactly the same liklihood that any other specific thing I can imagine that has no validated evidence is not actually a part of this reality. Even with minimal rounding of numbers, it's 100% (just not absolutely 100%). Such things should be forcefully denounced, in public, after they are publically promoted as being "the truth of reality" (which has gone on for thousands of years...). As far as I know, this is what Dawkins is doing. He has a massive beef with anyone who says "this, specifically, is the way the world is" without validated evidence to back it up. Without that validated evidence, there's actually an extremely low chance (0%, with any rounding...) that the world actually is, specifically, like that. Does such a thing make him an evangelical, hard-core atheist? Or does it make him a defender of honesty, clarity, and the gullible who could easily be manipulated by those who profess things-they-don't-know as absolute truths?

Yeah, sorry. I tend to move from "replying to the person in the post" to "replying for the sake of saying things to anyone who happens to read the message" fairly quickly and without warning.I understand that this can be confusing when identifying my target audience. Here, I didn't mean anything specifically against you, I had just started rambling

What can you do?
You can do as you say (testify to the truth).
And not do as you continue to do (surround your "truth" with ideas that you acknowledge may be incorrect).It's not a difficult concept. Just don't conflate your ideas of what happened with the aspects of what happened that you can actually corroborate. Perhaps you are right about 'your ideas' of what happened. But don't express those 'ideas' as 'the truth' unless you can actually show it to be the truth. Otherwise, everyone will easily see your words for what they are: nothing more than a tall tale (perhaps unintentionally).Continuing on as you have will only decrease the amount of respect you get for whenever you declare "the truth." Haven't you noticed that nobody ever takes you seriously anymore? That's because you've confused "your ideas" with "the truth" too many times. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to be honest about what you know, and what you're guessing at. There's nothing wrong with guesses. But there is something seriously dishonest (and easily identified) with professing guesses as "the truth."Truths
- you had an experience
- you think the Holy Spirit is responsible for that experience
- you think I will experience the same thing if I become born again
- you think this experience is "unique"
- you think this experience somehow grants you something that others (non-"born-again" people... whatever that means) do not (cannot?) haveYour ideas added to your "truth"
- it must be the Holy Spirit that is responsible for your experience.
But this isn't true. It could be any number of things, including nothing supernatural at all.- I will inevitably experience the "same thing" if I also become born again
But this isn't true. People are different, we will all react differently (sometimes slightly different, sometimes greatly) to even the same experiences.- your experience is, exclusively, unique
But this isn't true. People from all different religions, and even those with no religion at all claim the exact same thing as you just have. This is nothing new. However it is special. But it's certainly not "unique." I can get the same feeling by focusing myself properly. Just did it right now, actually. Thanks mike, I don't get the excuse for causing such an internal euphoria every day. It is true that maybe you cannot reproduce the feelings from your experience. But that says nothing about me or anyone else... practice makes perfect.- your experience somehow grants you something that others (non-"born-again" people... whatever that means) do not or perhaps cannot have
But this isn't true. There is nothing at all (described as "natural" or otherwise) that religious people of any kind possess that cannot be obtained equally or better by non-religious people. There is no religious demographic that is significantly ahead of any other group of people in terms of crime rate, levels of personal happiness, or anything like that. It's simply not true. To spout otherwise is nothing more than lying. In fact, we can see that those demographics that specifically deny religion (like Sweeden) can easily rise to the top levels of any desired trait.It's easy for people to identify when you're talking about "the truth" and when you're adding "your ideas." One you can show, the other you cannot. When you keep babbling on about knowing "the truth" when you're incapable of showing it to be so... your mistake is rather obvious to everyone. That's why no one respects what you say, because you're not honest about what you know and what's unknown.

A very good point.Anyone who claims that an "absolute moral system from their all-powerful God trumps all others" is actually falling into the worst kind of relative moral system. That is, they are subjectively accepting the authority of the God simply because He is all-powerful. This choice of accepting the absolute moral system as one that should be followed is the identifying factor of a relative moral system. Ironically enough, this is as bad as mike the wiz's favourite example that atheists "may as well" follow Jack the Ripper's authority on morality.The only way such a choice is acceptable is if it can be shown that the absolute moral system is actually "good." In which case, one will have to define good apart from the absolute system... which then renders the absolute system irrelevent. With a stand-alone definition of "good," we're left with a moral system that is equivalent to any other relative system that uses it's own stand-alone definition of "good."Therefore, any claimed "absolute" moral system can only ever be as-"good"-as-or-worse than any claimed relative moral system.Hiding behind the veil of an "absolute" moral system is incredibly irresponsible and only shows where people have stopped thinking about why they accept such a moral system. It is the responsibility of all adults to understand how and why they make important decisions. Simply claiming that an absolute moral system is good just because "God says it is" is not being responsible, and simply isn't good enough.And, by the way, welcome to EvC. Have a good look around, it's big here and there are lots of interesting topics on a variety of subjects. Have fun!Edited by Stile, : Added welcome message, 'cause I think it's good to be nice

I don't see any specifically inherent danger attached to believing in God or any other deity. Regardless of their actual existence (which may very well be unattainable knowledge for us).The danger I'm afraid of is when folks take their unsubstantiated beliefs and start telling others what to do. In order to start telling others what to do, you better be able to show that what you're talking about is an actual part of reality. Especially when things become important. When people are unable to do this, and fall into this trap, that's where I feel they lack responsibility.It is almost human nature to gain personal validation by having others agree with us. It is also a part of human nature to accept "as truth" information that is provided to us from people in authoritative positions (parents, pastors, elders, friends...) Therefore, it's very, very easy to fall into the above trap, or take advantage of such a trap (perhaps unintentionally) and start getting others to do things we don't actually have any factual basis to rely on. It's the ease of this danger that makes it extremely hazardous.This doesn't mean it's wrong to do such things for ourlseves, only that it's not right to attempt to convince others of something we are unable to show is actually true, without also conveying that the information is only "personally accepted", or "without factual basis". This doesn't make it false, but to omit such a glaringly important aspect when relaying information to others is only another display of lacking responsibility.It also doesn't do anything to promote oneself as an acceptable resource for information. We all have "that friend" who you can pretty much throw out their opinion on pretty much everything 'cause you know they're just talking out their ass, even when they adamantly claim to "know" something.

I'm going to take a guess here, just to be clear. Feel free to point it out if the assumption I'm making is incorrect.I'm assuming:
-you're talking about some sort of failed education on the part of America to it's older generation? (Or something along those lines?)Does this imply that you think "being responsible" is something that should be taught in schools or by government?Personally, I think that learning responsibility is best learned on one's own. Being responsible takes motivation. I'm not sure if there's an easy way to "teach motivation" to anyone and everyone. It seems to me that such a thing is very subjective and personal.Once we are mature enough to understand that our decisions have consequences, and that different decisions result in people viewing us differently... it becomes apparent that we can choose what sort of person we would like to be. Do we want to be responsible? Do we want to be reliable? Do we want to take the easy roads? Do we want to leech off of others' kindness and generosity?These are difficult, and important questions. I also think it would be wrong in a controlling-sense to teach a "one-and-only correct path" on such a subject. But even devising a curriculum to teach the consequences, pros and cons of such decisions would be a daunting task. I think you may have too much invested in Mr. Obama if you feel he's actually going to be able to implement some sort of super-fix to this problem that has been a part of being human since humans have existed.------------------------
AbE:
Sorry Phat, I did all the background explaining and forgot to address the question. I wonder if that's how one starts a career in politics... Anyway, as far as owing the older generation anything... I don't really see how. It's this blame-game that is the problem. For the older generation to blame the government for something they had all the tools to fix on their own anyway... goes against everything that needs changing in the first place.So, no, I don't think anyone (especially the government) owes anything to the older generation... responsibility-wise, anyway.
------------------------ I don't understand this part of the question. Does accepting responsibility take away from our dreams? Is that the question? Does anyone seriusly dream about being a leech on society and never being able to do things for themselves? I thought dreams would be more akin to having a large impact on society, or acheiving great success... such things come hand-in-hand with accepting responsibility and being mature.So, if I have your question right, my answer is absolutely "no" and that accepting responsibility only gets us closer to making our dreams into reality.Edited by Stile, : Just practicing...