I was raised in a Christian family, and I was a committed Christian for all of my young life, as was my older brother (he still is). One day when I was in high school, I was reading something about Christianity that troubled me, so I walked into my brother's room and asked him if we, as Christians, were (or should be) closed-minded. He thought about it for a moment and said, "yes."
If you are a Christian, do you believe (without any positive or negative value judgment for the moment) that you are closed-minded?
Jesus said, "blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believed." As a mirror-image to my other thread about whether skepticism is a sin, do you believe that being closed to other possibilities (other than God existing and Jesus being his risen son) is virtuous?
If you are a former Christian, do you believe that you were closed-minded while you were a Christian, and if so, do you believe that your leaving the church was a direct result of you becoming open-minded?
Are Christians Closed-Minded?
Moderator: Moderators
-
rookiebatman
- Sage
- Posts: 550
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:02 am
Post #31
I am a Christian, and I think I'm very open-minded. I'd be happy to hear anyone's ideas on how any of the real, non-hypothetical problems around us can be solved, and I'd be glad to try their solution myself if it were feasible for me to undertake.
I'm also very skeptical - in fact, I think you have to be pretty darn skeptical to be a Christian. Jesus requires that I constantly be on the lookout for false teaching [1]. There are plenty of non-Christian worldviews and institutions of which I am highly skeptical. That doesn't mean I won't hear them out... but I have found very few people willing to promote alternative solutions to real problems (I'm always up for a 'putting our heads together' discussion).
There's a thin line between open-minded and indecisive. If it's closed-minded to make a conscious decision and stick to it, then call me closed-minded. I'm sick of wasting time second-guessing myself, and ready to live my life with a purpose. Anybody else want out of this Matrix of nihilist idealism?
[1] Matthew 7:15-20
I'm also very skeptical - in fact, I think you have to be pretty darn skeptical to be a Christian. Jesus requires that I constantly be on the lookout for false teaching [1]. There are plenty of non-Christian worldviews and institutions of which I am highly skeptical. That doesn't mean I won't hear them out... but I have found very few people willing to promote alternative solutions to real problems (I'm always up for a 'putting our heads together' discussion).
There's a thin line between open-minded and indecisive. If it's closed-minded to make a conscious decision and stick to it, then call me closed-minded. I'm sick of wasting time second-guessing myself, and ready to live my life with a purpose. Anybody else want out of this Matrix of nihilist idealism?
[1] Matthew 7:15-20
-
rookiebatman
- Sage
- Posts: 550
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:02 am
Post #32
I wouldn't say that. If you've first made a decision based on a reasonable amount of evidence, then the only time you need to revisit your decision (if you want to remain open-minded) is when new evidence is presented.Wissing wrote:There's a thin line between open-minded and indecisive. If it's closed-minded to make a conscious decision and stick to it, then call me closed-minded.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Trying hard not to be sarcastic
Post #33[Replying to post 31 by Wissing]
You've left yourself pretty open.
How does the religion tells you how to solve any problem, bear with me.
Assume you believe what you believe, no problems, right?
Now, you solve problems with that belief, easy right?
Now you've made judgments based on that believe.
Now here's the tricky part: A third party knows that belief is wrong, and knows the truth. How does this change your judgments?
It does not. You make the same judgments, based on a falsehood.
So the litmus therefore is applying what you believe to other scenarios, or ones of differing views.
So what problems does it solve, that it isn't also the author of? Creation? Evolution? (Evolution pre-dates Christianity, and was destroyed by it for some reason.)
See, I am guessing that you are going to say, "moral" problems. But those very moral problems you bring up, get the same solution, whether your beliefs are correct or not.
If there is a god and you believe a certain way, then you make certain judgments.
If there isn't and you believe a certain way, you STILL make the same judgments.
So, what is a venue by which we can test the veracity of the truth of the beliefs. If they are true, there must be one.
You've left yourself pretty open.
How does the religion tells you how to solve any problem, bear with me.
Assume you believe what you believe, no problems, right?
Now, you solve problems with that belief, easy right?
Now you've made judgments based on that believe.
Now here's the tricky part: A third party knows that belief is wrong, and knows the truth. How does this change your judgments?
It does not. You make the same judgments, based on a falsehood.
So the litmus therefore is applying what you believe to other scenarios, or ones of differing views.
So what problems does it solve, that it isn't also the author of? Creation? Evolution? (Evolution pre-dates Christianity, and was destroyed by it for some reason.)
See, I am guessing that you are going to say, "moral" problems. But those very moral problems you bring up, get the same solution, whether your beliefs are correct or not.
If there is a god and you believe a certain way, then you make certain judgments.
If there isn't and you believe a certain way, you STILL make the same judgments.
So, what is a venue by which we can test the veracity of the truth of the beliefs. If they are true, there must be one.
I will never understand how someone who claims to know the ultimate truth, of God, believes they deserve respect, when they cannot distinguish it from a fairy-tale.
You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.
To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight
You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.
To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25141
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 55 times
- Been thanked: 93 times
Post #34
.
The content of a signature is not subject to debate.
It is inappropriate to question a person's motivation or to ask someone to prove they are open minded.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Moderator Commentttruscott wrote: Can you prove you are open minded please, and seriously concerned about the Christian communities open mindedness and not just trying to shame people into listening to your podcasts?
The content of a signature is not subject to debate.
It is inappropriate to question a person's motivation or to ask someone to prove they are open minded.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Post #35
I didn't bring up any specific moral problems. Now that you mention it, I will bring up a specific problem: substandard housing in Appalachia. I believe that faith in God is critical to solving that problem, because without faith in God, one has only faith in Man. Mankind's understanding is not sufficient. I witnessed this ineptitude of Man (myself included) for several years, and I still stand no closer to having a practical solution to the problem. What I did learn is how complex and multifaceted the problem really is, and that its roots go way deeper than any expertise I, or any other human, could possibly fathom. People go in there thinking they have it all figured out because they come from more "educated" regions. I've heard it all. It's the coal companies' fault, it's the lack of education, it's drugs, it's crime... it's probably some combination of all of those and more, but that doesn't get us anywhere. We need the Lord. That's my opinion, and my solution is to let him direct me, because I don't have it all figured out.But those very moral problems you bring up, get the same solution, whether your beliefs are correct or not.
How are you solving the problem? I am open-mindedly ready to hear your solution to the problem of substandard housing in Appalachia, or any other specific problem of your choosing. I want to know that your worldview is constructive and solution oriented, and not merely defined by what you don't believe in.
Their fruits.So, what is a venue by which we can test the veracity of the truth of the beliefs. If they are true, there must be one.
-
Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #36
Apparently the Lord hasn't figured out the problem either. In the meantime, more Christians identify with the Republican Party. You know? The one that votes down sharing bills, and promotes legislation that helps the rich get richer. The party that thinks it's cool to raise taxes on the poor and middle class but is completely opposed to raising taxes on the rich and on big corporations. Doesn't seem to me the teachings of Jesus have filtered down to most Christians after 2000 years.Wissing wrote:I didn't bring up any specific moral problems. Now that you mention it, I will bring up a specific problem: substandard housing in Appalachia. I believe that faith in God is critical to solving that problem, because without faith in God, one has only faith in Man. Mankind's understanding is not sufficient. I witnessed this ineptitude of Man (myself included) for several years, and I still stand no closer to having a practical solution to the problem. What I did learn is how complex and multifaceted the problem really is, and that its roots go way deeper than any expertise I, or any other human, could possibly fathom. People go in there thinking they have it all figured out because they come from more "educated" regions. I've heard it all. It's the coal companies' fault, it's the lack of education, it's drugs, it's crime... it's probably some combination of all of those and more, but that doesn't get us anywhere. We need the Lord. That's my opinion, and my solution is to let him direct me, because I don't have it all figured out.But those very moral problems you bring up, get the same solution, whether your beliefs are correct or not.
.
But in reality, God's plans and man's plans are the same, because 'God' is an invention of man. "God's" plans ARE the plans of men.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #37
[Replying to post 35 by Wissing]
So, I think you missed the point.
Or... I am going crazy. I am open to both suggestions.
So, if what you believe is true, then you make certain decisions about the Appalachians.
Now, if your beliefs are wrong, it doesn't change your decisions.
You made the same decisions whether the god you believe in is there or not.
...?
So, I think you missed the point.
Or... I am going crazy. I am open to both suggestions.
So, if what you believe is true, then you make certain decisions about the Appalachians.
Now, if your beliefs are wrong, it doesn't change your decisions.
You made the same decisions whether the god you believe in is there or not.
...?
Post #38
[Replying to post 37 by Willum]
There are tons of decisions I could never have made, or even had the opportunity to make, if it weren't for the Lord. Furthermore, I have worked on this particular problem with two sets of people: those with faith, and those without faith. The difference in the lives of the people we served was like night and day. I can't expect you to understand this, having not experienced what I experienced. This is why I gave you the option of presenting a specific problem of your choosing, and your solution to it. If you do not do this, the only evidence you've provided is that there is at least one atheist whose worldview does not compel him to find constructive solutions to real problems. I implore you to make any positive claim whatsoever, and I promise that I will be open-minded in hearing you out. But if you choose not to stand for anything, and only against Christianity, then I wholeheartedly believe that you are in the wrong.
There are tons of decisions I could never have made, or even had the opportunity to make, if it weren't for the Lord. Furthermore, I have worked on this particular problem with two sets of people: those with faith, and those without faith. The difference in the lives of the people we served was like night and day. I can't expect you to understand this, having not experienced what I experienced. This is why I gave you the option of presenting a specific problem of your choosing, and your solution to it. If you do not do this, the only evidence you've provided is that there is at least one atheist whose worldview does not compel him to find constructive solutions to real problems. I implore you to make any positive claim whatsoever, and I promise that I will be open-minded in hearing you out. But if you choose not to stand for anything, and only against Christianity, then I wholeheartedly believe that you are in the wrong.
Post #39
[Replying to post 36 by Danmark]
Danmark, I don't doubt that many Christians are Republicans, but you've made a few rather large claims by linking Christianity to Republicanism, and also by demonizing Republicans, and also by implying that Jesus' teachings suggest that taxes should be raised on the rich. I would like you to provide citations to your sources of information for these claims, so that myself and others can better understand your theory.
Danmark, I don't doubt that many Christians are Republicans, but you've made a few rather large claims by linking Christianity to Republicanism, and also by demonizing Republicans, and also by implying that Jesus' teachings suggest that taxes should be raised on the rich. I would like you to provide citations to your sources of information for these claims, so that myself and others can better understand your theory.
-
rookiebatman
- Sage
- Posts: 550
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:02 am
Post #40
[Replying to post 38 by Wissing]
I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens was very critical of Mother Theresa, and one of the things he's said is that access to birth control has been demonstrably shown to mitigate the effects of poverty that Mother Theresa was supposedly helping. But since she was Catholic, she was opposed to birth control, and thus, according to Hitchens' model, was just making the problem worse. So there's one example of an atheist suggested a "godless" model for fixing a major societal problem, and one Christian who, in tackling the problem a "godly" way, may have just been perpetuating it. In fact, it's widely accepted that she believed suffering brought people closer to God, which has led to the claim that she purposefully prevented people's suffering from being mitigated (by withholding painkillers, and not using the contributions to her ministry to actually treat the root causes of poverty instead of just treating the symptoms), so that they could be brought closer to God in their suffering. She's been quoted as saying, There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering. And yet, when she was sick, she flew to a hospital in a different country in first class.
Not that I want this to just become a debate about Mother Theresa, but as far as Hitchens proposing an alternate way of dealing with the problems that she was dealing with, is that the kind of thing you're looking for?
I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens was very critical of Mother Theresa, and one of the things he's said is that access to birth control has been demonstrably shown to mitigate the effects of poverty that Mother Theresa was supposedly helping. But since she was Catholic, she was opposed to birth control, and thus, according to Hitchens' model, was just making the problem worse. So there's one example of an atheist suggested a "godless" model for fixing a major societal problem, and one Christian who, in tackling the problem a "godly" way, may have just been perpetuating it. In fact, it's widely accepted that she believed suffering brought people closer to God, which has led to the claim that she purposefully prevented people's suffering from being mitigated (by withholding painkillers, and not using the contributions to her ministry to actually treat the root causes of poverty instead of just treating the symptoms), so that they could be brought closer to God in their suffering. She's been quoted as saying, There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering. And yet, when she was sick, she flew to a hospital in a different country in first class.
Not that I want this to just become a debate about Mother Theresa, but as far as Hitchens proposing an alternate way of dealing with the problems that she was dealing with, is that the kind of thing you're looking for?
