Why are so many christians closed-minded? (my rant)

[psychoslice]

Well, it is a Christian forum. Were they saying they were open to criticism? Isn't it the same as the DIRs here? If you post anti-______ you get warned not to go there.

There was no rule as there is here, they just want every one to agree with them, they them selves will go to a thread that doesn't agree with their beliefs and voice their opioins, and nothing is said, quite frankly they make me sick.

 

[no intelectual]

I went to a christian chat room on MSN. We were discussing the validity of the scripures and was it faithfully preserved by the early Orthodox Church. I politely listened to this person's opinion but when I gave my views on the subject, the moderator kicked my out.

Christians shove their views down your throat but they don't want to hear what the other person have to say.

It's wrong!

What did you say if you don't mind my asking? Although, I am not surprised.

 

[Sand Dancer]

But alot of the fundamental demoninations are.

You hit it right on the head.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I went to a christian chat room on MSN. We were discussing the validity of the scripures and was it faithfully preserved by the early Orthodox Church. I politely listened to this person's opinion but when I gave my views on the subject, the moderator kicked my out.

Christians shove their views down your throat but they don't want to hear what the other person have to say.

It's wrong!

It's like they're afraid to be challenged.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's like they're afraid to be challenged.

It seems to me that in many religious groups a major, even decisive attractive is indeed the certainty that some challenges will not be tolerated, or even raised at all. People like certainty.

Christians are not even the worst offenders.

In any case, that is certainly troublesome.

I wonder. Is that a good thing somehow? As a phase, perhaps?

 

[Sand Dancer]

It seems to me that in many religious groups a major, even decisive attractive is indeed the certainty that some challenges will not be tolerated, or even raised at all. People like certainty.

Christians are not even the worst offenders.

In any case, that is certainly troublesome.

I wonder. Is that a good thing somehow? As a phase, perhaps?

Maybe they think that if they are challenged, it means they're automatically wrong. To me, it should cement their beliefs, or expose that they're wrong. Either way, it elicits action, and thinking more deeply is always a good thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe they think that if they are challenged, it means they're automatically wrong. To me, it should cement their beliefs, or expose that they're wrong. Either way, it elicits action, and thinking more deeply is always a good thing.

I don't think it is anything quite that analytical, Thirza. More like they go to their meeting place to enjoy the feeling of having a common cause, of being a part of something big, and questioning is unpleasant and breaks that atmosphere.

Truth be told, such an atmosphere of "safety" is a basic human need. A good writer on the subject is Carl Rogers.

I just don't think it is very healthy to seek for it as a function of religious dogma.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I don't think it is anything quite that analytical, Thirza. More like they go to their meeting place to enjoy the feeling of having a common cause, of being a part of something big, and questioning is unpleasant and breaks that atmosphere.

I was hoping to attribute something more complex to it. lol

A good writer on the subject is Carl Rogers.

I love Carl. I wrote a paper on him in college. We got an A.

 

[no intelectual]

It's like they're afraid to be challenged.

Its not because they are afraid of being challenged They are plain and simply judging, but they are blind to see it.

 

[ChristineES]

There is a time and a place for criticisms of someone's religion or whatever else and I think that a group specifically for the group is the right place. I think there are plenty of both religion and no-religion places, like the RF, for instance for that.

 

[Satan's Right Hand Man]

They have to be closed minded and aggressive with their ideology because for one, their religious dogma is being challenged by science. For two their beliefs are being challenged by common sense left and right.

I mean, sure, their myths and dogma may have may perfect sense to people with the level of intelligence alive 2000 years ago... but people these days have intellectually developed since then.

 

[Shermana]

The problem with Christian closed mindedness isn't so much about science, as it seems almost all of the complaints are directed at their belief in a young Earth, as if that actually means anything in application, and is mostly just a non-issue in terms of real world action. The way I see it, the main problem is their particular doctrine and interpretations and how they lead a lifestyle, not their belief in science. As far as I'm concerned, whether they believe in a billions-year old Earth and Macro-evolution or not makes not one shred of difference in their personal lives except in discussions on science and if they want to pursue careers in the fields of geology. Even Creationist Biologists have made notable contributions, so I really don't see the problem with that, yet it's the main if not only concern besides their opposition to gay marriage that we ever see against them in that regard. If anything this regard may make them see human beings as having greater worth than those who view everyone as just developed apes.

The REAL problem regarding their unwillingness to address their doctrine is their lack of willingness to address the issue that their recent theologies are basically about "Do as thou wilt and Jesus forgives you", adopting a very overly anti-legalism attitude, in which they think they are basically allowed to live however they please with the excuse that Jesus forgives them.

This belief, I believe, makes them less moral and more willing to infringe on others than not.

 

[LuisDantas]

Even Creationist Biologists have made notable contributions, so I really don't see the problem with that,

Are you sure? The only example that might resemble that description in some way would be Stephen J. Gould, who is not a Creationist despite a lot of effort of presenting him as something like one.

The idea of a Creationist Biologist that manages to be competent anyway is quite counter-intuitive if not all-out contradictory. So if you know of any, I would like to learn of them.

(...)

The REAL problem regarding their unwillingness to address their doctrine is their lack of willingness to address the issue that their recent theologies are basically about "Do as thou wilt and Jesus forgives you", adopting a very overly anti-legalism attitude, in which they think they are basically allowed to live however they please with the excuse that Jesus forgives them.

This belief, I believe, makes them less moral and more willing to infringe on others than not.

There is something to that, but I fear you are underestimating the ethical and psychological damage that Creationism causes and demands in order to remain in existence. It is quite deep and IMO a far bigger problem than the excesses fed by anti-legalism.

 

[Shermana]

Sure.

Raymond Vahan Damadian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Raymond Vahan Damadian (born March 16, 1936, NY USA) is an American medical practitioner and inventor of the first MR (Magnetic Resonance) Scanning Machine.

Some[who?]consider Damadian to be a controversial figure in academic circles, for his exuberant behavior at conferences and the fact that he is a young earth creationist.[27][28] And also a member of the Technical Advisory

Board of the Institute for Creation Research.[29]

In a 1971 paper in the journal Science,[8] SUNY Downstate Medical Center professor Damadian reported that tumors and normal tissue can be distinguished in vivo by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).

Philosopher Michael Ruse writing for the Metanexus Institute suggested that Damadian might have been denied a Nobel prize because of his creationist views, saying:
I cringe at the thought that Raymond Damadian was refused his just honor because of his religious beliefs. Having silly ideas in one field is no good reason to deny merit for great ideas in another field. Apart from the fact that this time the Creation Scientists will think that there is good reason to think that they are the objects of unfair treatment at the hands of the scientific community.| M. Ruse[30]
Damadian himself said, "Before this happened, nobody ever said to me 'They will not give you the Nobel Prize for Medicine because you are a creation scientist'. If people were actively campaigning against me because of that, I never knew it

They're there, their contributions are just for some reason overshadowed by others who haven't made nearly as much of a breakthrough.

Now what kind of "Ethical" and "psychological" damage are you talking about specifically?

 

[LuisDantas]

They're there, their contributions are just for some reason overshadowed by others who haven't made nearly as much of a breakthrough.

I'm still not sure that he is a creationist, nor that he is a biologist.

I truly doubt one could be a functional biologist without washing away creationist (or shall I say anti-evolutionist?) views.

Now what kind of "Ethical" and "psychological" damage are you talking about specifically?

That created by continued exposure and participation to creationist culture and the intellectual vices and shortcomings that it needs to survive.

Continued appeal to authority, fear of questioning, extreme bias. You know the scenario.

 

[Shermana]

I'm still not sure that he is a creationist, nor that he is a biologist.

I truly doubt one could be a functional biologist without washing away creationist (or shall I say anti-evolutionist?) views.

Did you read the quotes? Even secular Philosophers argued he missed the Nobel prize because of his Creationist beliefs. He's as Creationist as Creationist gets, why would you doubt it? He was on the board for the Institute of Creationist research. You have to really not want to believe it's possible to deny this.

Also, this would beget a discussion on what constitutes a "Biologist", considering his particular discoveries.

If you can't accept that a person who was so central in so much Bio-physical advancement could be a Creationist, you may want to reasses your own confirmation biases. As we can see, Christians and religious people definitely by no means have anything close to a monopoly on being closed minded.

That created by continued exposure and participation to creationist culture and the intellectual vices and shortcomings that it needs to survive.

I see all the same from a fiercely secular culture.

Continued appeal to authority, fear of questioning, extreme bias. You know the scenario.

As if that is exclusive to Creationism? Appeal to authority seems to be defacto standard when it comes to a lot of this type of discussion from the other side all the same. Isn't appeal to authority a central tenet in regards to citing peer reviewed data? Isn't peer review all about appeal to an authority-approved study?

 

[LuisDantas]

Did you read the quotes? Even secular Philosophers argued he missed the Nobel prize because of his Creationist beliefs. He's as Creationist as Creationist gets, why would you doubt it? He was on the board for the Institute of Creationist research. You have to really not want to believe it's possible to deny this.

It is a surprise, that I will readily grant you.

Also, this would beget a discussion on what constitutes a "Biologist", considering his particular discoveries.

He seems to be a physicist, not a biologist. His MRI research is certainly not based on "non-evolutionist biology", if such a thing can even exist.

If you can't accept that a person who was so central in so much Bio-physical advancement could be a Creationist, you may want to reasses your own confirmation biases. As we can see, Christians and religious people definitely by no means have anything close to a monopoly on being closed minded.

True enough, for what it is worth.

I just don't think you will have a very easy time finding examples in that particular field. It is much too slanted.

I see all the same from a fiercely secular culture.

Really?

As if that is exclusive to Creationism?

More like that Creationism can only be found in that environment, actually. The other way around.

Appeal to authority seems to be defacto standard when it comes to a lot of this type of discussion from the other side all the same.

The key word being "seems", I must assume.

Isn't appeal to authority a central tenet in regards to citing peer reviewed data?

In that it must be avoided fiercely? Yes, it is. That is in fact one of the main reasons why peer-review is so valued: to remove appeal to authority.

Isn't peer review all about appeal to an authority-approved study?

Heck, no.

 

[psychoslice]

When we believe in something that gives us comfort, we cling to that and are afraid to adventure outside that comfort zone, so it could be fear that keeps us in our prison, a prison that we believe we are comfortable in.

 

[dance-above]

The only thing I must ask you LCMS Sprecher, is do you believe that the only way to heaven is through jesus christ? If so, that is being closed minded. Personally I believe that every religion has the ability to bring you to whatever enlightenment you choose. It is when people think "there way is the only way" is when they become close minded.

Christian way is the only way for them. What I don't understand is why so many nonbelievers try to change us. If non Christians were truly open minded they wouldn't care about what we were believing. But no you honestly believe we're wrong You want us to say their are other ways causing us to deny our faith. This would be damnation to us.

 

[dance-above]

The Christian way is "love " there is no law against this. No condemnation. No wrath of God