Christians have a pathetic reason for their existence

[parky76]

Ask a devout Christian why they exist and what their goal in life is, and they will tell you "to go to Heaven".

So what they do in this world, the only life they are guarunteed of having, is irrelevant and worthless?

The only point of living in this world, is to make it to the make believe, un-proven, and possibly BS next one?

And if these Christians are convinced that the next life is a fake, they have no reason to live??

Wow. How sad. How pathetic. One should not need the possibility of another life to come, to justify living a good life in the one they KNOW they have.

[Safe-Keeper]

This is what reading Rapture Ready does to a poor soul...

[quixotecoyote]

Hi. I'm a resident atheist and I do not endorse the OP.

[Wildy]

Have you really only figured that out now?

Look at some of the more fundamentalist religions and you'll see a rather common pattern emerge. The stricter sense of morality is there to supposedly make someone "pure" enough to enter heaven. And the result is basically that these people don't do anything in this life because they are trying to make sure that they are ready for the next one.

Not all Christians are like that, just like not all Christians will give the same response that you said in the OP. People have their own purposes in life, and there will be instances where even the most devout Christian will have a purpose in life that isn't "to go to Heaven".

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the more the denomination is like a "death cult" the more likely they are going to think that this life is somewhat pointless.

[Fnord]

Hi. I'm a resident atheist and I do not endorse the OP.
Hello, I am a resident Theist, and I also do not endorse the OP.

Nor will I endorse any rabid attempts by other Theists to flame, ridicule, deprecate, or discredit the OP or the OP poster.

[RandFan]

Hi. I'm a resident atheist and I do not endorse the OP.The OP is stereotype, broad brush indictment.

I also do not endorse the OP.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Hi, I'm an agnostic and I endorse this product

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/D9KMA7i38Q8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/D9KMA7i38Q8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[slingblade]

Hi.


Is there cake?

[RandFan]

Hi.


Is there cake?I was to understand that there would be punch and pie.

[MG1962]

Yeah come on parky. I have seen your other threads, you are much better than this

[Undesired Walrus]

I thought you believed in Intelligent design parky?


So what they do in this world, the only life they are guarunteed of having, is irrelevant and worthless?


Well, on an objective level, I suppose everyone's lives are irrelevant.

[sleepy_lioness]

I think I'll have a beer.

[bookitty]

You can not define any group by the extremes. Well, I suppose you can, but in that case it might be better to change your sig.

[Vortigern99]

The will to reach or achieve Heaven -- a state of joyful oneness with God -- in the afterlife is meant to shape one's behavior in the here-and-now, toward benevolence, mercy, compassion, etc.

There is nothing "sad" or "pathetic" about a belief system which encourages benevolent, compassionate and forgiving behavior in its adherents.

[RandFan]

The will to reach or achieve Heaven -- a state of joyful oneness with God -- in the afterlife is meant to shape one's behavior in the here-and-now, toward benevolence, mercy, compassion, etc.

There is nothing "sad" or "pathetic" about a belief system which encourages benevolent, compassionate and forgiving behavior in its adherents.I'm not in favor of labeling any group of people sad and pathetic. I'm not in support of the OP.

That said, I'm not sure that the belief system can be defined simply as that which encourages benevolent, compassionate and forgiving behavior. Further, I think it is far from succesful at that.

[parky76]

Have you really only figured that out now?

Look at some of the more fundamentalist religions and you'll see a rather common pattern emerge. The stricter sense of morality is there to supposedly make someone "pure" enough to enter heaven. And the result is basically that these people don't do anything in this life because they are trying to make sure that they are ready for the next one. .

It seems to me that for the more fundy Christians, their reasons for doing good deeds, donating to charities, being kind to their neighbors, are for very very selfish reasons.

Most fundy Christians only strive to live a moral life so that they can go to heaven. The logical conclusion to that is that if they no longer believed in heaven, they would feel no obligation or personal justification to do nice things, and would go around raping, murdering, and stealing.

See, I am an agnostic. But I surely don't believe in Heaven. But yet, I strive to be as good a person as I can be.

Why do I do this..knowing there is not some perpetual spiritual reward waiting for me?

Cause its the right thing to do, and I would want to be treated the same way. I don't need a reward to be a nice person and a kind human being. Seeing a smile on the face of a child is enough reward for me. Even without a smile, knowing that I did a good thing that helped someone, is all the reward I need.

As opposed to fundy Christians, who only do good things so they can go to Heaven. Selfish, self-surving bastards.

[Pure_Argent]

The will to reach or achieve Heaven -- a state of joyful oneness with God -- in the afterlife is meant to shape one's behavior in the here-and-now, toward benevolence, mercy, compassion, etc.

There is nothing "sad" or "pathetic" about a belief system which encourages benevolent, compassionate and forgiving behavior in its adherents.

In theory, yes, the Christian religion is one of forgiveness and love. In practice, however, it is far from it. While it is true that all the "sins" one accrues can be forgiven at any time, simply by repenting, it must be said that the religion has been specifically engineered so that it is impossible not to commit a horrible sin every thirty seconds. And the "love everyone" ideal apparently doesn't extend to unbelievers, blasphemers, homosexuals, or anyone else whose beliefs and/or lifestyle choices differ even slightly from the established "way of god".
While I wholly support the idea of establishing a group of any kind that supports morality and love and forgiveness, I do not agree that Christianity is this kind of institution.

[parky76]

I thought you believed in Intelligent design parky?
.

I believe in the possibility of a grand higher power that created the Universe and keeps it going.

That doesn't have anything to do with the Bible or mythical ideas like Heaven, Hell, Valhalla, what have you.

[RandFan]

Most fundy Christians only strive to live a moral life so that they can go to heaven. The logical conclusion to that is that if they no longer believed in heaven, they would feel no obligation or personal justification to do nice things, and would go around raping, murdering, and stealing.I don't think most people really buy that. It's a great argument for why religious morality is BS but the religious are still products of sociobiology. They don't get their brains completely washed and dried because they buy into some meme. Dawkins makes this point often. Evolutionary based reciprocal altruism, empathy and other evolutionary stable strategies coupled with social based morality are just as applicable to them as they are to you and I.

[Vortigern99]

I'm not in favor of labeling any group of people sad and pathetic. I'm not in support of the OP.

That said, I'm not sure that the belief system can be defined simply as that which encourages benevolent, compassionate and forgiving behavior. Further, I think it is far from succesful at that.

I agree that Christianity, or any religion, is a more complicated belief system than a mere summation of its moralizing purpose can convey. A better explanation of religion is that it acts as a social cohesive, dictating what is beneficial and what is harmful to a given society, while assuaging the individual's fear of death.

It would be hard to argue, for example, that any of the 7 Deadly Sins are healthful, helpful or benevolent pursuits. The religious injunctions against such vices as greed, vanity, envy, sloth, etc. exist in order to keep people doing things that are productive, positive and good for society as a whole, rather than engaging in selfish, self-serving endeavors that over time would erode the fabric of society.

(At least, this is the theory and purpose behind religion. I'm not saying that all religions/belief systems/denominations achieve their purposes successfully, across the board, without any snags or unfortunate side-effects. Still, the goals of social cohesion and fear assuaging are noble, IMO, even if a given belief system falls short of its mark.)

But the opening post of this thread misses the entire point that the purpose of Heaven is to keep believers from sinning, ie from committing errors that lead to social decay. This purpose might be paraphrased as: "Be a good, compassionate, merciful person, and you get to spend eternity in joyful unity with God, in Heaven."

IOW, the idea of Heaven does not exist as a separate concept beyond or apart from the conditions and behaviors of one's lifetime. Rather, the attainment of Heaven is contingent upon one's proper, moral behavior during one's life.

[Undesired Walrus]

I believe in the possibility of a grand higher power that created the Universe and keeps it going.


Why, if I may ask?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136056

Before you ridicule these Christian folks, remember your thread linked above shares many of their more wacky views.

[Undesired Walrus]

But the opening post of this thread misses the entire point that the purpose of Heaven is to keep believers from sinning, ie from committing errors that lead to social decay. This purpose might be paraphrased as: "Be a good, compassionate, merciful person, and you get to spend eternity in joyful unity with God, in Heaven."

IOW, the idea of Heaven does not exist as a separate concept beyond or apart from the conditions and behaviors of one's lifetime. Rather, the attainment of Heaven is contingent upon one's proper, moral behavior during one's life.

Well, it can do that, but then it depends entirely on what one considers to be proper, moral and good.

It may be seen as moral to try and resist your 'unproper' sexual preference for example, something that isn't a minority event in Christianity.

[Vortigern99]

In theory, yes, the Christian religion is one of forgiveness and love. In practice, however, it is far from it. While it is true that all the "sins" one accrues can be forgiven at any time, simply by repenting, it must be said that the religion has been specifically engineered so that it is impossible not to commit a horrible sin every thirty seconds. And the "love everyone" ideal apparently doesn't extend to unbelievers, blasphemers, homosexuals, or anyone else whose beliefs and/or lifestyle choices differ even slightly from the established "way of god".
While I wholly support the idea of establishing a group of any kind that supports morality and love and forgiveness, I do not agree that Christianity is this kind of institution.

You're mistaken, IMO, that Christianity is "far from a religion of forgiveness and love". Though you do not appear to believe this, there are many Christians who are sincerely kind and loving. You're free to discount me or reject my observations, but I'm not Christian and I've encountered many kind-hearted Christian people in my lifetime.

Where a Christian person, or any person, falls short of complete benevolence, this is not a failure of their belief system -- it is a failure of the person him or herself. Weakness of morals and lack of accountability are human problems, not just Christian ones. For those who truly accept Christ's admonition to "love your neighbor as yourself", the ideal does indeed extend to "unbelievers", etc. You might not have known any loving Christians, but I have and I do, and I know for a fact that you are making erroneous over-generalizations about them as a group.

The institution of Christianity, conceived of as a monolithic entity, may fail as a shaping force toward personal benevolence and "loving-kindness"; but on an individual, personal, scriptural level, that is the purpose of the faith, and in many cases, though you might reject this as untrue, it actually does work.

[RandFan]

It would be hard to argue, for example, that any of the 7 Deadly Sins are healthful, helpful or benevolent pursuits. The religious injunctions against such vices as greed, vanity, envy, sloth, etc. exist in order to keep people doing things that are productive, positive and good for society as a whole, rather than engaging in selfish, self-serving endeavors that over time would erode the fabric of society.But consider the harm done by social stigma and obsessive concern for many of these things. I'm sorry but while religion has served the purpose you claim it has come at a very high price.

But the opening post of this thread misses the entire point that the purpose of Heaven is to keep believers from sinning, ie from committing errors that lead to social decay. This purpose might be paraphrased as: "Be a good, compassionate, merciful person, and you get to spend eternity in joyful unity with God, in Heaven." See my post to Parky, I'm skeptical as to the degree in which punishment and reward in the afterlife are effective. I think the greatest argument against them was made by Kant who pointed out that only if the gallows were situated outside of the brothel and each customer knew that he would die upon exiting would sin cease.

IOW, the idea of Heaven does not exist as a separate concept beyond or apart from the conditions and behaviors of one's lifetime. Rather, the attainment of Heaven is contingent upon one's proper, moral behavior during one's life.Whatever good religion served it is now at best anachronistic. The idea of heaven didn't obviate slavery, subjugate and oppression of women, wars, genocide etc..

I've no way of knowing whether or not religion serves as a net good or net evil. I've struggled for years over the idea and have kept up a yearly debate with an associate over the idea. I take the net good side but to be honest my passion has waned and I don't think it will continue.

There are two critically important things to understand about religion as it applies to morality.

It's not needed.
It caries a high price and many unintended consequences.

[Pure_Argent]

You're mistaken, IMO, that Christianity is "far from a religion of forgiveness and love". Though you do not appear to believe this, there are many Christians who are sincerely kind and loving. You're free to discount me or reject my observations, but I'm not Christian and I've encountered many kind-hearted Christian people in my lifetime.

Where a Christian person, or any person, falls short of complete benevolence, this is not a failure of their belief system -- it is a failure of the person him or herself. Weakness of morals and lack of accountability are human problems, not just Christian ones. For those who truly accept Christ's admonition to "love your neighbor as yourself", the ideal does indeed extend to "unbelievers", etc. You might not have known any loving Christians, but I have and I do, and I know for a fact that you are making erroneous over-generalizations about them as a group.

The institution of Christianity, conceived of as a monolithic entity, may fail as a shaping force toward personal benevolence and "loving-kindness"; but on an individual, personal, scriptural level, that is the purpose of the faith, and in many cases, though you might reject this as untrue, it actually does work.

Yes, there are nice Christian people. I wasn't saying that there weren't. My entire family is Christian, and they're all nice people (well, my sister's annoying sometimes, but she's nice overall :D ). But the religion as a whole is less a love-fest than a means of controlling people.

[Hokulele]

...

It would be hard to argue, for example, that any of the 7 Deadly Sins are healthful, helpful or benevolent pursuits. The religious injunctions against such vices as greed, vanity, envy, sloth, etc. exist in order to keep people doing things that are productive, positive and good for society as a whole, rather than engaging in selfish, self-serving endeavors that over time would erode the fabric of society.

...


I disagree. Pride and envy can be motivational forces in societies. Pride in one's community can help forge stronger bonds between members of that community. Being "too proud to beg" can keep members of that community active and productive in the larger sense. Sure, envy over what others have can lead to theft or other "bad" behaviors, but it can also lead to self-improvement and "good" competition, particularly in capitalist societies.

Your broad brush condemnation of various characteristics of human nature (Seven Deadly Sins) is almost, but not quite, as short-sighted as the broad brush condemnation of Christianity shown in the OP.

[hamelekim]

Ask a devout Christian why they exist and what their goal in life is, and they will tell you "to go to Heaven".

So what they do in this world, the only life they are guarunteed of having, is irrelevant and worthless?

The only point of living in this world, is to make it to the make believe, un-proven, and possibly BS next one?

And if these Christians are convinced that the next life is a fake, they have no reason to live??

Wow. How sad. How pathetic. One should not need the possibility of another life to come, to justify living a good life in the one they KNOW they have.

Well that's nice calling other people sad and pathetic. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror...

In any case, the answer they should give is that they are looking forward to the return of Jesus and his eternal kingdom on earth. Where Christians will be rules with Christ for all eternity, giving glory to God, and being in the presence of God for all eternity.

Being that God is love, and you know how you feel when you are in love, it will be an eternity of joy and happiness.

Yes when a Christian dies they go to Heaven, but when Jesus returns he will raise up the dead and give them new incorruptible bodies.

You either live for yourself or you live for God. If you don't believe in Christianity then you live for yourself.

If you don't believe in Christianity then what do you use to define what is good and bad? There is no universal morality that is somehow defined by the very nature of existence, outside of God. So arguing that they should do good in the life they have now is meaningless because definitions of good differ depending on your belief system.

If you believe in Jesus you will want to God's will. Unless you are doing God's will nothing you do is good, defined by God. If you feed millions of starving children, yet reject Jesus, it counts and nothing before a perfect and holy God.

So your argument is really meaningless because it depends on everyone having the same morals and the same belief in why those morals are right.

[RandFan]

I disagree. Pride and envy can be motivational forces in societies. Pride in one's community can help forge stronger bonds between members of that community. Being "too proud to beg" can keep members of that community active and productive in the larger sense. Sure, envy over what others have can lead to theft or other "bad" behaviors, but it can also lead to self-improvement and "good" competition, particularly in capitalist societies.

Your broad brush condemnation of various characteristics of human nature (Seven Deadly Sins) is almost, but not quite, as short-sighted as the broad brush condemnation of Christianity shown in the OP.Thanks Houk,

You know, I wasn't indoctrinated with the 7 and I really didn't think much about them. Having read your post I took the time to look them up. I would hope that as a society we have made some social progress since the 4th and 6th centuries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Development_of_the_Traditional_S even_Sins). I don't think psychologists and sociologists think much of treating these things as "sin". Further they are different problem that call for different aproaches. And I agree with you that pride and envy shouldn't even be on any list for blanket condemnation. I would add despair (depression I guess).

It's the 21st century. I think it time to let the notion of "sin" go. It might have served a purpose at one time but it's anachronistic.

[arthwollipot]

I disagree. Pride and envy can be motivational forces in societies. Pride in one's community can help forge stronger bonds between members of that community. Being "too proud to beg" can keep members of that community active and productive in the larger sense. Sure, envy over what others have can lead to theft or other "bad" behaviors, but it can also lead to self-improvement and "good" competition, particularly in capitalist societies.I'm rather a fan of lust, myself...

[Undesired Walrus]

Well that's nice calling other people sad and pathetic. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror...

I thought you were supposed to love your neighbour?

In any case, the answer they should give is that they are looking forward to the return of Jesus and his eternal kingdom on earth. Where Christians will be rules with Christ for all eternity, giving glory to God, and being in the presence of God for all eternity.

Evidence?

Being that God is love, and you know how you feel when you are in love, it will be an eternity of joy and happiness.

Evidence?

Yes when a Christian dies they go to Heaven, but when Jesus returns he will raise up the dead and give them new incorruptible bodies.

Evidence?

You either live for yourself or you live for God. If you don't believe in Christianity then you live for yourself.

Several famous Atheists have proven this statement wrong.

If you don't believe in Christianity then what do you use to define what is good and bad? There is no universal morality that is somehow defined by the very nature of existence, outside of God.

It's worth remembering that when students study morality they do not turn to the Bible but instead read from actual moral philosophers like Kant, Aristotle etc. This is because the Bible is a mess of contradictions with no reasoned arguments when it comes to specifying what is good and evil.

There is an innate sense of good and bad programmed into Humanity. They will feel it is right to save their child from death because it carries their genes within them. But there is no objective morality, that is true.

If you believe in Jesus you will want to God's will. Unless you are doing God's will nothing you do is good, defined by God.

Like stoning non-virgins to death on their wedding night?

If you feed millions of starving children, yet reject Jesus, it counts and nothing before a perfect and holy God.

What a cruel and jealous God. It's certainly not worth following.

[Pure_Argent]

Well that's nice calling other people sad and pathetic. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror...

Now reread your statement, but I would like you to imagine that I am saying it.
It's a delicious, vicious (and nutritious!) cycle.

In any case, the answer they should give is that they are looking forward to the return of Jesus and his eternal kingdom on earth. Where Christians will be rules with Christ for all eternity, giving glory to God, and being in the presence of God for all eternity.

Isn't that exactly the answer they did give?

Being that God is love, and you know how you feel when you are in love, it will be an eternity of joy and happiness.

Wait, you mean that sicky, anxious, simultaneously hot-and-cold obsession? Urgh.
And, anyway, please give a source for "God is love".

Yes when a Christian dies they go to Heaven, but when Jesus returns he will raise up the dead and give them new incorruptible bodies.

You have yet to prove this.

You either live for yourself or you live for God. If you don't believe in Christianity then you live for yourself.

What if you're Jewish? Or Muslim? Christians don't have a corner on the morality market.

If you don't believe in Christianity then what do you use to define what is good and bad? There is no universal morality that is somehow defined by the very nature of existence, outside of God. So arguing that they should do good in the life they have now is meaningless because definitions of good differ depending on your belief system.

This is nonsense. By your own argument, Christianity does not provide an acceptable basis for a moral system ("definitions of good differ depending on your belief system").
In any case, we define good and bad by our own standards. However, this does not mean that we define outlandish behavior as "good". Thievery, murder, and their ilk are all still bad. Because, you see, we hold ourselves to our own moral standards.
And, though you will deny it, this is exactly what Christians (and other theists, for that matter) do as well. You can say that the Bible - or God - is the ultimate source of morality, but in the end you decide what you will and will not do.

If you believe in Jesus you will want to God's will.

No. The two are not mutually inclusive.

Unless you are doing God's will nothing you do is good, defined by God. If you feed millions of starving children, yet reject Jesus, it counts and nothing before a perfect and holy God.

Then this god is not perfect and holy. In fact, I would say that he's an egomaniacal control freak who deserves to be dethroned.

So your argument is really meaningless because it depends on everyone having the same morals and the same belief in why those morals are right.

Right back at ya, bub.

[RandFan]

In any case, the answer they should give is that they are looking forward to the return of Jesus and his eternal kingdom on earth. Where Christians will be rules with Christ for all eternity, giving glory to God, and being in the presence of God for all eternity.If you like that sort of thing. I'm serious. What kind of BS is that? Is that the best that human imagination can do? Bronze age people came up with an idea for utopia and you believe it will make you happy. Why? Certainly not based on that description. I don't want to rule with anyone. Rule what?

Being that God is love, and you know how you feel when you are in love, it will be an eternity of joy and happiness.How can you be happy knowing that others weren't saved? Will god erase your memories or do you become some kind of Stepford Wife?

You either live for yourself or you live for God. If you don't believe in Christianity then you live for yourself. I live for family. My wife and children. I served a two year mission teaching people about living for god and I honestly have no idea what that even means.

If you don't believe in Christianity then what do you use to define what is good and bad?Believing in Christiantiy doesn't help. There is far to many differning opinions as to what is good and bad.

I like the golden rule. We know that people are by and large born with empathy and a sense of morality. Christian sociopaths like Dennis Rader still commit attrocity even if they believe.

So your argument is really meaningless because it depends on everyone having the same morals and the same belief in why those morals are right.No, your argument is meaningless because we can prove that Christianity doesn't gurantee morality and we know that non-Christians are as likely to be moral as Christians.

[Piscivore]

It seems to me that for the more fundy Christians, their reasons for doing good deeds, donating to charities, being kind to their neighbors, are for very very selfish reasons.
So?

What is wrong with Win/Win solutions?

See, I am an agnostic. But I surely don't believe in Heaven. But yet, I strive to be as good a person as I can be.

Why do I do this..knowing there is not some perpetual spiritual reward waiting for me?
Apparently, so you can feel smug and superior to those with whom you disagree.

I also do not endorse the OP.

ETA: "Christians" have the same reason for their existance that any other human being has- once apon a time, a man stuck his tallywhacker in a lady's who-ha long enough to deposit his seed, yadda yadda yadda.

[Piscivore]

It would be hard to argue, for example, that any of the 7 Deadly Sins are healthful, helpful or benevolent pursuits. The religious injunctions against such vices as greed, vanity, envy, sloth, etc. exist in order to keep people doing things that are productive, positive and good for society as a whole, rather than engaging in selfish, self-serving endeavors that over time would erode the fabric of society.

First you need to support your premises: that "selfish" and "self-serving" inherently "erode the fabric of society", and the one where people are bees in a hive who's only actions should be for the "good for society as a whole". As I see it, any action that is "productive" or "positive" for someone tends to have a negative impact for someone else. This is a world of finite resources, you do realise?

[Vortigern99]

But consider the harm done by social stigma and obsessive concern for many of these things. I'm sorry but while religion has served the purpose you claim it has come at a very high price.

See my post to Parky, I'm skeptical as to the degree in which punishment and reward in the afterlife are effective. I think the greatest argument against them was made by Kant who pointed out that only if the gallows were situated outside of the brothel and each customer knew that he would die upon exiting would sin cease.

Whatever good religion served it is now at best anachronistic. The idea of heaven didn't obviate slavery, subjugate and oppression of women, wars, genocide etc..

I've no way of knowing whether or not religion serves as a net good or net evil. I've struggled for years over the idea and have kept up a yearly debate with an associate over the idea. I take the net good side but to be honest my passion has waned and I don't think it will continue.

There are two critically important things to understand about religion as it applies to morality.

It's not needed.
It caries a high price and many unintended consequences.


You may be correct in that some or even many people no longer need religion to keep them "in line" in a moral or ethical sense, neither to assuage their fear of death. But the fact remains that some or many people do still need it for these purposes. An atheist may shake his/her head at the implicit sadness of this -- that a theist needs what are essentially lies (or at least symbolic truths masked by mythopoeic imagery) as a guide to how to live their lives -- but it's just human nature. That some of us are ready to move away from metaphysical answers toward a purely scientific explanation of the universe is no guarantee, nor compunction, that the remainder of the species must immediately follow suit.

As to "whether or not religion serves as a net good or net evil", which seems to be at the heart of this debate, it's difficult to quantify one's opinion one way or the other. I have a sense that religion on the whole serves a net good, but where is my data toward this conclusion? It's admittedly subjective, and probably informed by a degree of confirmation bias... exactly as the opposite conclusion -- that religion as a whole serves a net evil -- is informed. At this point we're only debating personal, subjective opinion, and that rarely leads anywhere productive.

[RandFan]

But the fact remains that some or many people do still need it for these purposes. I don't think that is in evidence but I'm happy to accept that you believe that it is so.

Otherwise I pretty much agree with your post.

[Vortigern99]

I disagree. Pride and envy can be motivational forces in societies. Pride in one's community can help forge stronger bonds between members of that community. Being "too proud to beg" can keep members of that community active and productive in the larger sense. Sure, envy over what others have can lead to theft or other "bad" behaviors, but it can also lead to self-improvement and "good" competition, particularly in capitalist societies.

Your broad brush condemnation of various characteristics of human nature (Seven Deadly Sins) is almost, but not quite, as short-sighted as the broad brush condemnation of Christianity shown in the OP.

What we're running into here is largely a semantic problem, and a lack of clarity on my part. My "broad brush condemnation of various characteristics of human nature" only appears to be so, because I summarized my points very quickly, and did not endeavor to clarify or expound on them. Allow me, then, to explain more thoroughly.

You're absolutely correct that at their core, each of the 7 so-called Deadly Sins or vices is a good/productive/positive/motivating force. Lust in the sense of sexual desire keeps the species going, and keeps life-partners bonded together. Envy and greed, as you've noted, can stimulate productivity. Sloth in the sense of restfulness is a reward at the end of a hard day's or week's work.

It's when these forces dominate one's life that they spin out of control, and become detriments on both an individual and societal basis. Pride in this context, for example, does not mean satisfaction in a job well done, or in the beloved qualities of one's nation or people. It means a feeling of superiority or supremacy over "lesser" persons, nations, peoples, etc., to the point of self-delusion. As to vanity, of course it behooves a person to have good grooming and a concern for one's appearance, but at worst this drive can become obsessive and self-centered. Lust if not controlled can have destructive effects on one's marriage, and so on.

These matters are more complex than a simple across-the-board condemnation of a certain word or idea can convey. Language is a limited tool, after all, and a list of 7 Things You Should Not Let Dominate Your Life* (*with addenda, explanations and clarifications) is simply not as handy and user-friendly as a list of 7 single-word Deadly Sins. In short, the list is not intended to condemn pride as a social cohesive or motivating force; rather, it condemns pride as a delusion of supremacy.

I hope this clarifies my point, but I'll be glad to expound on it where necessary.

[RandFan]

It's when these forces dominate one's life that they spin out of control, and become detriments on both an individual and societal basis.

...

I hope this clarifies my point, but I'll be glad to expound on it where necessary.For myself I found that it did clarify. However I would like to make the point that I think the idea of "sin" anachronistic in the 21st century.

I don't see the point of calling a woman with postpartum depression a sinner. Social stigma still has some value and I question whether we will ever completly get rid of it. However I think it much healthier to see these issues outside of a religious context. Science, particularly psychology and other social sciences have a far better likelyhood of reaching broad based consensus and finding better solutions to these problems than simple social stigma.

[Piscivore]

It's when these forces dominate one's life that they spin out of control, and become detriments on both an individual and societal basis.

These matters are more complex than a simple across-the-board condemnation of a certain word or idea can convey.

No it isn't- what you are saying boils down to the only "sin" being immoderation. Not only is being to "prideful" detrimental, so is being too humble. One can be too angry, and one can be too meek. One can be too passionate, and one can be too apathetic.

[Hokulele]

No it isn't- what you are saying boils down to the only "sin" being immoderation. Not only is being to "prideful" detrimental, so is being too humble. One can be too angry, and one can be too meek. One can be too passionate, and one can be too apathetic.


And one can be too pious.

[Piscivore]

And one can be too pious.

Quite so. Which is why I like Ikkyu. :)

[RandFan]

And one can be too pious.Absolutely.

As a Mormon who grew up with prohibitions of vice I can attest that viewing things like sex and alcohol as "sin" can result in many unintended consequences.

After years of therapy I asked my psyhcologist why I had a sex addiction. She explained that the sex drive is like a river. You can't keep it from flowing. You can damn it up for awhile but eventually it will find a way through and it's not always a good thing when it does.

Orgel's Second Law (as formulated by Dan Dennett) states that "Evolution is smarter than you are".

[Pure_Argent]

After years of therapy I asked my psyhcologist why I had a sex addiction. She explained that the sex drive is like a river. You can't keep it from flowing. You can damn it up for awhile but eventually it will find a way through and it's not always a good thing when it does.

I was going to point out that you misspelled dam. Then I realized that it was better this way.

:D

[RandFan]

I was going to point out that you misspelled dam. Then I realized that it was better this way.

:D:) Agreed. Dam it up to avoid damnation and be damned anyway. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Oh damn...

ETA: religious prescriptions cures us of what we suffer from but we suffer from the cure.

[Pure_Argent]

:) Agreed. Dam it up to avoid damnation and be damned anyway. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Oh damn...

ETA: religious prescriptions cures us of what we suffer from but we suffer from the cure.

Rofl.

[parky76]

Buddhists and other Eastern faiths argue that you should never do a good deed or a good thing because you want or expect some sort of reward in return.

You should do a good deed because you believe it is the right thing to do. Otherwise, don't do it at all.

[RandFan]

Buddhists and other Eastern faiths argue that you should never do a good deed or a good thing because you want or expect some sort of reward in return. Some would argue that goodness is a reward in and of itself. That if we didn't experience a sense of well being or feeling good for doing good then the concept of "good" would have no meaning.

[Piscivore]

Buddhists and other Eastern faiths argue that you should never do a good deed or a good thing because you want or expect some sort of reward in return.
Cite?

You should do a good deed because you believe it is the right thing to do. Otherwise, don't do it at all.
Why not? Does the sick kid who gets to play with a nintendo in the hospital (or get to have his operation to save his life) give a crap if I feel like good about myself, am well thought of by my community, or maybe gets me laid because the girl I'm trying to impress thinks I'm "sweet" for donating money, or would he just as soon rather I hadn't done anything at all if it was going to have a positive benefit to me?

The attitude expressed in your comment is complete and utter horse dung, and the sooner it is expunged from human discourse (except as a quaint historical curiosity, like human sacrifice) the better.

[Pure_Argent]

The attitude expressed in your comment is complete and utter horse dung, and the sooner it is expunged from human discourse (except as a quaint historical curiosity, like human sacrifice) the better.

Marketing principles apply to social interactions, too! Mutual profit is always a good thing!

[thaiboxerken]

Parky, I'm right with you. The belief in a heaven and afterlife diminishes the value of life itself. It's the worship of death.

[Vortigern99]

I disagree. I don't personally believe in Heaven, but inasmuch as I understand the concept, it does not diminish the value of life, but rather fulfills it. It gives one a reason to be kind and loving (if one requires a reason beyond "it's the right thing to do"), and promises a joyful eternity as a reward. How this "diminishes the value of life" or constitutes "the worship of death" is an open question.

[Olowkow]

I disagree. I don't personally believe in Heaven, ....It gives one a reason to be kind and loving (if one requires a reason beyond "it's the right thing to do"), and promises a joyful eternity as a reward. ....

I'm no expert, but I thought it didn't matter how good you are, if you don't believe in the right stuff you don't qualify. I think a lot of people probably lie to themselves, and convince themselves that it does not matter that their belief is a sham. They can scam god, and sneak into heaven.
Otherwise, their behavior is a total mystery to me.

[RandFan]

I disagree. I don't personally believe in Heaven, but inasmuch as I understand the concept, it does not diminish the value of life, but rather fulfills it. It gives one a reason to be kind and loving (if one requires a reason beyond "it's the right thing to do"), and promises a joyful eternity as a reward. How this "diminishes the value of life" or constitutes "the worship of death" is an open question.I've been on both sides of the fence. I wouldn't say that it necessarily diminishes it but I don't at all see how it fulfills it. I don't accept that.

My life is not unfulfilled because I don't believe in heaven.

[parky76]

The attitude expressed in your comment is complete and utter horse dung, and the sooner it is expunged from human discourse (except as a quaint historical curiosity, like human sacrifice) the better.

well, put it this way, I'd much rather you did a nice thing for me because you think its a nice thing to do, rather then because you told yourself:

"by doing this nice thing for Parky, I will get more credits with Jesus".

[Piscivore]

well, put it this way, I'd much rather you did a nice thing for me because you think its a nice thing to do, rather then because you told yourself:

"by doing this nice thing for Parky, I will get more credits with Jesus".

Why should it make any difference to you what I get out of it? In trying to dictate to others what their motivations "should" be to do nice things how are you any different than the Christians that want you to behave a certain way by asserting "heaven" is condtional upon it?

[parky76]

Why should it make any difference to you what I get out of it? In trying to dictate to others what their motivations "should" be to do nice things how are you any different than the Christians that want you to behave a certain way by asserting "heaven" is condtional upon it?

why should it make a difference? cause I want people doing nice things for me and others because they believe it is the right thing to do, not because they think it will bring them more street credit with Jesus and a possibly entry ticket into Heaven.

I can only speak for myself, but if you're gonna hold the door for me ONLY cause you want your ass in Heaven, then do me a favor and let the door close. I'd rather have the door held for me by a genuinely good person, not a person who deep down is just looking out for himself.

[Piscivore]

why should it make a difference? cause I want people doing nice things for me and others because they believe it is the right thing to do, not because they think it will bring them more street credit with Jesus and a possibly entry ticket into Heaven.
That's just repeating what you just said. Why does it make a difference? I want people doing nice things. If Jesus helps them to be nice when they otherwise wouldn't be, good on Jesus. If they are being nice becuase they were brainwashed by their parents or their government run school, that sucks for them, but at least they're being nice. If they are being nice because they want to get in my pants, well, I'm married, so again that sucks for them, but at least they're being nice. If they are being nice because they think they are going to get something from me because of it, they may be dissapointed, but at least they are being nice.

I can only speak for myself, but if you're gonna hold the door for me ONLY cause you want your ass in Heaven, then do me a favor and let the door close.
Once you start splitting hairs about their motivations, you are trying (or at the very least wishing) to control how people think. I find that appalling.

I'd rather have the door held for me by a genuinely good person, not a person who deep down is just looking out for himself.
What is "a genuinely good person"? And what is wrong with looking out for one's self? Especially if at the same time one can help out someone else? Do any of these "genuinely good" people exist? Can you show me even one? And how do you know? Do you read minds that you can know every variable motivating every person's every action? How else do you know who is "genuinely good"?

I suspect this "genuinely good" stuff is all noble-sounding nonsense to conceal that you just want people to think the way you want them to- which means in this case non-theistically.

[parky76]

I suspect this "genuinely good" stuff is all noble-sounding nonsense to conceal that you just want people to think the way you want them to- which means in this case non-theistically.

No. I want people to do nice things and to do the right thing, not because they expect or want some reward for it.

I want to live in a world where people do nice things without any hope of a reward..other then the good feelings that come with doing a nice thing for another human being.

[Hokulele]

No. I want people to do nice things and to do the right thing, not because they expect or want some reward for it.

I want to live in a world where people do nice things without any hope of a reward..other then the good feelings that come with doing a nice thing for another human being.


Short of mind-reading, how do you determine their motive? Like Piscivore, I do not care why someone chooses to be nice to me, as long as they do so.

And in addition, if you refuse someone's act of kindness because of what you think their motive may be, aren't you as guilty of motivated niceness as any Christian? In other words, your being mean (refusing the act) has an ulterior motive (punishing them for their lack of altruism) just as much as their gesture does.

[Piscivore]

No. I want people to do nice things and to do the right thing, not because they expect or want some reward for it.

I want to live in a world where people do nice things without any hope of a reward..other then the good feelings that come with doing a nice thing for another human being.

Thats the third time you've repeated what you want. I asked why does it make a difference?

[SusanB-M1]

#21
Originally Posted by parky76
I believe in the possibility of a grand higher power that created the Universe and keeps it going.
Why, if I may ask?

Just what I thought. I did not see a response to this and would be interested to read one.

[slingblade]

I believe in the possibility of a grand higher power that created the Universe and keeps it going.

That doesn't have anything to do with the Bible or mythical ideas like Heaven, Hell, Valhalla, what have you.

So you object because woo comes in different flavors?



Why?

[parky76]

#21
Originally Posted by parky76
I believe in the possibility of a grand higher power that created the Universe and keeps it going.
Why, if I may ask?

Just what I thought. I did not see a response to this and would be interested to read one.

why do I believe in the possibility of a higher power?

cause I see great intricacy and possibly intent in the design of the universe.

[thaiboxerken]

why do I believe in the possibility of a higher power?

cause I see great intricacy and possibly intent in the design of the universe.

It's called pareidolia.

[parky76]

It's called pareidolia.


so if you were digging in the ground one day, and found what appeared to be a machine, you would automatically assume it was created by nature..and NOT by an intelligent being?

;)

Just imagine. 2,000 years from now, aliens come to Earth. they find a watch. one alien says: "look!! this must have been created by an intelligent being!!" the other alien says:

"naa!! it just looks like it was created by something intelligent. thats your pareidolia. its really just part of nature. lets move on to another planet. nothing to see here."

[Pure_Argent]

so if you were digging in the ground one day, and found what appeared to be a machine, you would automatically assume it was created by nature..and NOT by an intelligent being?

;)

Ah, William Paley's Natural Theology argument.
It's a nice bit of reasoning, but it's also a false analogy.

[thaiboxerken]

so if you were digging in the ground one day, and found what appeared to be a machine, you would automatically assume it was created by nature..and NOT by an intelligent being?

So, you're digging in the ground, and you find dirt. You seem to be assuming that an intelligent being created that dirt. As long as you've been on the site, I figured you'd know the watchmaker's argument has been thoroughly refuted many, many times.

How are you differentiating between what was created by intelligent being and what was not? Oh wait, you seem to think it was all created by intelligent beings.

[willhaven]

Christians believe in god for selfish reasons. Because they want to go to heaven and because they're afraid of hell. They don't do it for god, they do it for themselves.

[Piscivore]

Christians believe in god for selfish reasons. Because they want to go to heaven and because they're afraid of hell. They don't do it for god, they do it for themselves.

That's a pretty broad brush you've got there.

[parky76]

Christians believe in god for selfish reasons. Because they want to go to heaven and because they're afraid of hell. They don't do it for god, they do it for themselves.

You'd be amazed how many Christians view their faith purely from a selfish point of view. They want to go to Heaven, so they believe in Jesus.

They don't want to go to Hell, so they try to walk in Jesus' footsteps.

I don't think this is what Jesus intended. Selfish individuals just looking out for their own needs.

Buddhists, Shintos, Hindus, and other Eastern faiths have it right: if you aren't doing a good deed purely for the good of the other person, or because its simply the right thing to do, then don't do it at all.

[Piscivore]

You'd be amazed how many Christians view their faith purely from a selfish point of view. They want to go to Heaven, so they believe in Jesus.

They don't want to go to Hell, so they try to walk in Jesus' footsteps.

I don't think this is what Jesus intended. Selfish individuals just looking out for their own needs.

Buddhists, Shintos, Hindus, and other Eastern faiths have it right: if you aren't doing a good deed purely for the good of the other person, or because its simply the right thing to do, then don't do it at all.

Why does it make a difference?

[XxDeadlyNinjaxX]

Yeah come on parky. I have seen your other threads, you are much better than this

That's for true!

[parky76]

Why does it make a difference?

Read the Lao Tzu.

I believe one's motivations for doing a good deed are very important.

[Piscivore]

Read the Lao Tzu.
"The Lao Tzu"? Do you mean the Tao te Ching? I have. To which part of that are you referencing?

I believe one's motivations for doing a good deed are very important.
So you repeat ad nauseum. You won't say why you feel they are important.

Why does it make a difference?

Why can't you answer that simple question? Are you afraid of the answer?

[thaiboxerken]

I think that doing good deads just because a god tells you to can be a very dangerous proposition, because that god could tell you to do bad stuff as well.

[Piscivore]

I think that doing good deads just because a god tells you to can be a very dangerous proposition, because that god could tell you to do bad stuff as well.

Same applies to any authority. Non Serviam. But that applies to why one shouldn't follow authorities one's own self. But why should one reject a kindess someone else does because that person feels motivated by a god, as parky claims?

[parky76]

But why should one reject a kindess someone else does because that person feels motivated by a god, as parky claims?

Oh, I said no such thing.

I am not talking about Christians who feel that they must do good things because God ordered them to do good things.

I am talking about Christians who's main motivation for doing good deeds is that if they do not do good deeds..they may go to Hell.

I can only speak for myself, but if the only reason you are holding the door for me is that "God" is watching and may send you to Hell if you don't, then do me a favor and don't. I don't want to be part of your delusion.

Do something nice for me...because you WANT to do something nice for me or you think its the right thing to do. Don't do me any favors if you are just looking out for yourself.

[bruto]

Ask a devout Christian why they exist and what their goal in life is, and they will tell you "to go to Heaven".

So what they do in this world, the only life they are guarunteed of having, is irrelevant and worthless?

The only point of living in this world, is to make it to the make believe, un-proven, and possibly BS next one?

And if these Christians are convinced that the next life is a fake, they have no reason to live??

Wow. How sad. How pathetic. One should not need the possibility of another life to come, to justify living a good life in the one they KNOW they have.

I'm not going to bother right now to read all the other responses to this post, but I've known a fair number of Christians, both devout and not so devout, and I don't think I've ever heard one of them say that going to heaven was the purpose of life. Doing God's will, perhaps, and many other ideas with which one can readily disagree without ridicule, but most Christians I've known think of heaven as the reward for sticking to their purpose, not as the purpose itself. Some may even have gone so far as to read and understand Ecclesiastes. If you think of yourself as a skeptic you should be able to do better than this.

[Piscivore]

Oh, I said no such thing.
I can only speak for myself, but if you're gonna hold the door for me ONLY cause you want your ass in Heaven, then do me a favor and let the door close.

I am not talking about Christians who feel that they must do good things because God ordered them to do good things.

I am talking about Christians who's main motivation for doing good deeds is that if they do not do good deeds..they may go to Hell.
Can you read minds? How do you know what their motivation is, and why do you care? You keep telling me over and over again what you "prefer", but you cannot answer why it matters.

I think you're afraid to answer this question because you realise that there isn't any way you can without appealing to your own self interest in some way. Because this is just pure, basic manipulation that you are spouting. Just the same as some bitter old grandmother refusing to see her grandkids because she doesn't approve of the man her daughter married.


I can only speak for myself, but if the only reason you are holding the door for me is that "God" is watching and may send you to Hell if you don't, then do me a favor and don't. How is that "doing you a favour"? And isn't "doing you a favour" and abiding by your wishes in turn "something nice" done for you?

Do you quiz each person that tries to do something nice to make sure of their motivations, or do you just "know"?

I don't want to be part of your delusion.
Now we are getting closer. Why don't you want to be part of their "delusion"?

Do something nice for me...because you WANT to do something nice for me or you think its the right thing to do. Don't do me any favors if you are just looking out for yourself.
Put me on ignore then, because I am polite to people because it suits my interests to be so. Everything I do is because it suits me to do so.

But still, you avoid the question- why does a person's motivations matter to you?

[willhaven]

That's a pretty broad brush you've got there.True.

But a Christian can be a good person without Christianity. Christians make a conscious decision to become a Christian. They do so in order to be saved.

Who else does the Christian do it for? They don't do it for Jesus. What does Jesus get out of the deal? Nothing really. What does the rest of the population get out of the deal? Nothing really. What does the Christian in question get out of the deal? Acceptance to a perfect place where they will be happy for eternity instead of being sent to hell for eternity.

Without the concept of heaven, hell and punishment, Christianity wouldn't have much of a following.

[willhaven]

Why does it make a difference?Motivations should matter to Christians. One question I often ask of Christians is "why does the concept of evil need to exist?"

God allows the concept of evil and allows Satan to thrive around us. All it does is distract us from worshiping him. The usual answer I get (if any) is that Christians must have faith and choose the correct choice of their own free will.

If you are compelled to believe in Jesus by the threat of eternal punishment, is that really free will?

Do the concepts of evil/sin/hell need to exist in order to have free will? If not. Why does he allow it? If evil and sin need to exist in order for free will to work, do the concepts of evil and sin exist in heaven? If so, what is the punishment for disobeying? If not, do you really have free will in heaven?

It's just full of logical contradictions.

[Piscivore]

True.

But a Christian can be a good person without Christianity. Christians make a conscious decision to become a Christian. They do so in order to be saved.
I was a Christian because that's what my parents taught me. I think you'll find for a very signifiganct proportion of Christians this is the only reason also.

"Christians" are not clones, they are not Borg. You simply cannot make factual, accurate statements of this kind.

What you're asserting here is a generalisation fallacy.

Who else does the Christian do it for?
Their parents. The other members of their church, to fit in. Someone with whom they want to have sex, in order to further that goal.

They don't do it for Jesus.
You read minds too? Wow.

What does Jesus get out of the deal?
Ask him. I don't read minds.

What does the rest of the population get out of the deal?
They get the security of feeling like the believer has similar values and motivations as themselves. This is a very important component of "peace of mind" and group cohesion as reflected in the strife readilly observed when an "other" moves into a family or neighborhood or otherwise similar group.

Nothing really.
Nothing really.
I wouldn't suggest answering one's own questions. It's crass, and when one is wrong it makes one appear foolish.

What does the Christian in question get out of the deal?
Inclusion in a community of like-minded individuals. Praise from other believers. Satisfaction at having problematic existential questions already answered. Reinforcment of already existing biases. Lots of things.

Acceptance to a perfect place where they will be happy for eternity instead of being sent to hell for eternity.
For some, that may be true. One errs into assuming it is the same for every Christian.

Without the concept of heaven, hell and punishment, Christianity wouldn't have much of a following.
This is contradicted by the numbers of Christians (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll3.htm) that claim to not believe in hell or eternal punishment.

Feel free to present evidence that Every Christian believes exactly the same thing about "heaven, hell and punishment".

[Piscivore]

Motivations should matter to Christians.
Why do you imagine you get to speak for Christians and dictate what "should matter" to them?

One question I often ask of Christians is "why does the concept of evil need to exist?"

God allows the concept of evil and allows Satan to thrive around us. All it does is distract us from worshiping him. The usual answer I get (if any) is that Christians must have faith and choose the correct choice of their own free will.

If you are compelled to believe in Jesus by the threat of eternal punishment, is that really free will?
See that "usual" you wrote up there? That tends to indicate that not all Christians give you that answer, right?

Do the concepts of evil/sin/hell need to exist in order to have free will? If not. Why does he allow it? If evil and sin need to exist in order for free will to work, do the concepts of evil and sin exist in heaven? If so, what is the punishment for disobeying? If not, do you really have free will in heaven?

It's just full of logical contradictions.
It is if you impose a bunch of premises on "Christianity" and try to claim that all Christians "should" believe them. In real life there are almost as many variations on belief as there are Christians.

Instead of trying to apply a pre-scripted argument, try listening to what the Christian actually claims and addressing that. I know it's more work that way, but life isn't fair.

[willhaven]

I was a Christian because that's what my parents taught me. I think you'll find for a very signifiganct proportion of Christians this is the only reason also.

"Christians" are not clones, they are not Borg. You simply cannot make factual, accurate statements of this kind.

What you're asserting here is a generalisation fallacy.It is a generalization, but in my experience it is a pretty accurate one.

Why did your parents immerse you in Christianity? Did they tell you about heaven and hell? About Satan? They told you because they wanted you to go to heaven. They are genetically programmed to want to care for you, so it is in their own interest to save you as well as themselves.


Their parents. The other members of their church, to fit in. Someone with whom they want to have sex, in order to further that goal.So they do it for themselves, selfishly. In order to fit in and be accepted with the group. And when they buy into the ideology, they believe it because, if they don't, they fear punishment from god.


You read minds too? Wow.Who gets into Christianity for Jesus? No one hears about the plight of Jesus and starts to worship him in order to do something on behalf of Jesus. They pray to god and believe in Jesus because they want to be saved. They do it for their own well being.


Ask him. I don't read minds.Exactly. Because Jesus gets nothing out of the transaction. The person being saved gets everything. The Christian in question chooses to save themselves out of their own self interest. Or at the very least, it is a major component in their beliefs, in addition to the cultural and acceptance aspects you point to earlier.


They get the security of feeling like the believer has similar values and motivations as themselves. This is a very important component of "peace of mind" and group cohesion as reflected in the strife readilly observed when an "other" moves into a family or neighborhood or otherwise similar group.So they get a stereotype. They get to pigeonhole other believers as inherently good people simply because they are Christian.


I wouldn't suggest answering one's own questions. It's crass, and when one is wrong it makes one appear foolish.Because you have no answer. What would Jesus get from you becoming a Christian? What does society as a whole get from you becoming a Christian that can't be provided otherwise? What does the Christian in question get in return? It's obvious that the big winner here is the person being saved.


Inclusion in a community of like-minded individuals. Praise from other believers. Satisfaction at having problematic existential questions already answered. Reinforcment of already existing biases. Lots of things.And this is not selfish? Again, Christians do it for themselves. The things they do for other people in the name of Christianity are done because they feel it reflects well on themselves. I'm not attempting to imply that the only reason a Christian would do anything positive is so they can bask in the limelight... but it does appear like they hope their actions will reflect well on themselves in the afterlife.

And still, the reason they become a Christian in the first place is out of self interest. You can be just as good a person to others without Jesus and without religion. Most Christians seem to believe that deeds don't get you into heaven, belief in Jesus does. They don't believe in Jesus for others, they believe in Jesus for themselves. It's self interest. Selfishness.


For some, that may be true. One errs into assuming it is the same for every Christian.I'd be willing to bet that every single solitary Christian that has ever existed has contemplated spending an eternity in hell. Wouldn't you agree?

It is one of the major tenets of Christianity. Punishment for the wicked, praise and an awesome afterlife for the believers.


This is contradicted by the numbers of Christians (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll3.htm) that claim to not believe in hell or eternal punishment.

Feel free to present evidence that Every Christian believes exactly the same thing about "heaven, hell and punishment".So the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in heaven and hell. I admit I was being hyperbolic to some degree. Fear of punishment isn't the only reason Christians believe, but it does seem to be a major component as to why they choose to believe and why they continue to believe.

I don't think Christians all believe the exact same thing. There is disagreement over minor principles. But the fact is that every Christian knows about heaven and hell. Every Christian that has accepted Jesus knows about the punishment for disbelief. If they don't, how can you call them a Christian if they don't even know the most basic elements of their religion?

Without the concept of heaven and hell, Christianity would be diluted to the point of being irrelevant. Pick and choose the parts you want and discard the parts you don't like?

Let's face it. Christians are mostly in it for themselves. If there was nothing in it for the Christian, why would they do it in the first place?


Why do you imagine you get to speak for Christians and dictate what "should matter" to them?Because I was a Christian for more than a decade. I was always told that your motivations for belief in Jesus and your motivations for the good things you do shouldn't be done selfishly, but they are. The whole concept of salvation and punishment is designed to feed on your own need to keep yourself safe from physical and emotional harm.


See that "usual" you wrote up there? That tends to indicate that not all Christians give you that answer, right?I usually get a deafening wall of silence. Or I get a roundabout answer that doesn't directly apply to what I was asking. A half answer that dodges the point I'm trying to make. I've never heard a reasonable explanation from any Christian as to why the entire concept of evil and sin need to exist in the first place.

Either you have the power to sin and wreak evil havoc in heaven or you don't. If you don't, why are we allowed to do so now? It doesn't seem to serve a purpose or a function for god.


It is if you impose a bunch of premises on "Christianity" and try to claim that all Christians "should" believe them. In real life there are almost as many variations on belief as there are Christians.

Instead of trying to apply a pre-scripted argument, try listening to what the Christian actually claims and addressing that. I know it's more work that way, but life isn't fair.I'm not saying that I know, which is why I ask. I get the impression that Christians believe heaven to be a perfect place free of sin. I get the impression that Christians believe sin and evil to be necessary in order to not be a pre-programmed robot with no free will. This is why I ask the questions above. Questions I never get coherent answers to.

The reason I never get coherent answers is because you cannot reconcile the requirement for free will with heaven, a perfect place where no one commits any sins. I've never talked to a Christian that believes that sin exists in heaven. I'm sure they exist and I'd love to hear how they justify it.

[Piscivore]

It is a generalization, but in my experience it is a pretty accurate one.
Then, since documentation exists that contradicts your generalisation, your experience is not a large enough sample to come to an accurate conclusion.

Why did your parents immerse you in Christianity?
Knowing my parents, probably because they thought it was expected of them. Neither are particularly devout, and attend church sporadically.

Did they tell you about heaven and hell? About Satan?
In an offhand sort of way. The same way one might mention Avalon or Arthur when discussing English History.

They told you because they wanted you to go to heaven.
Reading minds again?

They are genetically programmed to want to care for you, so it is in their own interest to save you as well as themselves.
That's a guess. Evidence?

So they do it for themselves, selfishly. In order to fit in and be accepted with the group.
That's another. Why is that a problem?

And when they buy into the ideology, they believe it because, if they don't, they fear punishment from god.

Who gets into Christianity for Jesus? No one hears about the plight of Jesus and starts to worship him in order to do something on behalf of Jesus. They pray to god and believe in Jesus because they want to be saved. They do it for their own well being.
Still mindreading. Or just guessing and treating it as fact. Or do you know the exact reasons every single person who "gets into Christianity" has done so?

Exactly. Because Jesus gets nothing out of the transaction. The person being saved gets everything.
Wait- you asked him?

The Christian in question chooses to save themselves out of their own self interest.
What is wrong with that? If I sincerely thought that jumping out a window would save me from a burning building, would you scoff at me for being "selfish" for jumping?

Or at the very least, it is a major component in their beliefs, in addition to the cultural and acceptance aspects you point to earlier.
I happen to think that "self interest" is a major component of everyone's beliefs, including yours, mine, Randi's Shermer's- everyone's. What is wrong with that?

So they get a stereotype. They get to pigeonhole other believers as inherently good people simply because they are Christian.
Just like others sterotype them as inherently "pathetic" people simply because they are Christian. It is one of many, many reasons. yet you only offered one. Why?

Because you have no answer.
I think you'll find that I actually did have an answer. That wasn't even the same as yours, funnily enough.

What would Jesus get from you becoming a Christian?
i don't know- ask him.

What does society as a whole get from you becoming a Christian that can't be provided otherwise?
What difference does it make? Are we ants, that exist only to serve the collective?

What does the Christian in question get in return?
Any number of a great many possibilities, only a few of which I enumerated already. Ask the Christian.

It's obvious that the big winner here is the person being saved.
So? What is wrong with that?

And this is not selfish? Again, Christians do it for themselves. The things they do for other people in the name of Christianity are done because they feel it reflects well on themselves.
So? What is wrong with that?

I'm not attempting to imply that the only reason a Christian would do anything positive is so they can bask in the limelight... but it does appear like they hope their actions will reflect well on themselves in the afterlife.
So? what is wrong with that? I presume you work, are you doing it to help your boss, or because you get paid?

And still, the reason they become a Christian in the first place is out of self interest.
If that were true, and it may not be for every Christian- so what? what is "bad" about self interest?

You can be just as good a person to others without Jesus and without religion.
Some people can, yes. But people are not all the same. And if some are better people with Jesus than they would be without, doesn't it benefit you for them to follow Jesus?

Most Christians seem to believe that deeds don't get you into heaven, belief in Jesus does. They don't believe in Jesus for others, they believe in Jesus for themselves. It's self interest. Selfishness.
So? What is wrong with that?

I'd be willing to bet that every single solitary Christian that has ever existed has contemplated spending an eternity in hell. Wouldn't you agree?
No. Because when I was, I did not. "Hell" is not a big part of the Methodism in which I was raised, and I know many Christians for which "hell" is just as mythical (or at best, metaphorical) as hades.

It is one of the major tenets of Christianity.
Of some varieties of Christianity. There is not one "Chritianity". That's your fallacy.

So the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in heaven and hell. I admit I was being hyperbolic to some degree.
Great. Then I presume you withdraw the assertions dependent on that fallacious premise?

Fear of punishment isn't the only reason Christians believe, but it does seem to be a major component as to why they choose to believe and why they continue to believe.
Even if that is so, how is it your business?

I don't think Christians all believe the exact same thing. There is disagreement over minor principles. But the fact is that every Christian knows about heaven and hell. Every Christian that has accepted Jesus knows about the punishment for disbelief. If they don't, how can you call them a Christian if they don't even know the most basic elements of their religion?
The simplest explanation is that you are mistaken in assuming what comprises a "basic element" of their belief.

Without the concept of heaven and hell, Christianity would be diluted to the point of being irrelevant. Pick and choose the parts you want and discard the parts you don't like?
That's the way most believers approach religion. That's why there are factions, schisms and sects in almost every faith. Why do you get to insist that Christians be fundamentalists or they are not "true Christians"?

Let's face it. Christians are mostly in it for themselves. If there was nothing in it for the Christian, why would they do it in the first place?
Replace "Christians" with any other group of people and it is equally true. So what?

Because I was a Christian for more than a decade. I was always told that your motivations for belief in Jesus and your motivations for the good things you do shouldn't be done selfishly, but they are.
So, not only are you assuming that your own personal experience of Christianity is the same as everyone else's, even after you leave you assume that one particular value of theirs still applies to everyone?

The whole concept of salvation and punishment is designed to feed on your own need to keep yourself safe from physical and emotional harm.
That might be true of the group from which you came, but you make an error extrapolating that to all Christians.

I usually get a deafening wall of silence. Or I get a roundabout answer that doesn't directly apply to what I was asking. A half answer that dodges the point I'm trying to make.
It can't be that the point you are trying to make is wrong, and the "half answers" and "dodging" are because your assumptions do not agree with their beliefs?

I've never heard a reasonable explanation from any Christian as to why the entire concept of evil and sin need to exist in the first place.

Either you have the power to sin and wreak evil havoc in heaven or you don't. If you don't, why are we allowed to do so now? It doesn't seem to serve a purpose or a function for god.
What has that to do with what we are discussing?

I'm not saying that I know, which is why I ask. I get the impression that Christians believe heaven to be a perfect place free of sin. I get the impression that Christians believe sin and evil to be necessary in order to not be a pre-programmed robot with no free will. This is why I ask the questions above. Questions I never get coherent answers to.
Perhaps they are not "coherent" because they don't fit with what you assume they believe- or "should" believe. Your posts thusfar quite clearly demonstrate that your thinking does include certain assumptions.

The reason I never get coherent answers is because you cannot reconcile the requirement for free will and a perfect place where no one commits any sins. I've never talked to a Christian that believes that sin exists in heaven. I'm sure they exist and I'd love to hear how they justify it.
What has that to do with what we are discussing?

[parky76]

If you are compelled to believe in Jesus by the threat of eternal punishment, is that really free will?
.

Its one thing to do good deeds because "God commanded me to do so". That just shows obedience to God.

Its a whole other thing to good deeds because "God said if I do nice things I'll go to Heaven". That shows a selfish state of mind.

[Piscivore]

Its one thing to do good deeds because "God commanded me to do so". That just shows obedience to God.

Its a whole other thing to good deeds because "God said if I do nice things I'll go to Heaven". That shows a selfish state of mind.
What is wrong with that? Why does it matter? And why are the people that posit this ridiculous notion such rutting cowards about answering these questions?

[willhaven]

Then, since documentation exists that contradicts your generalisation, your experience is not a large enough sample to come to an accurate conclusion.The religion itself dictates hell as a punishment. In Christianity, hell has a function and a purpose. The purpose is to persuade you to make the right choice.

If anyone knows the basics of Christianity and chooses to become a Christian, they likely understand this and the threat of punishment in hell plays a role in their decision to become a Christian.


Knowing my parents, probably because they thought it was expected of them. Neither are particularly devout, and attend church sporadically. So why aren't they very devout? Why do they sporadically attend church? As an ex-Christian, I'd be willing to bet it's because they're reasonable intelligent people who can see the absurdities and contradictions in the bible, but they still have that fear that it might possibly be real, so they still believe just to be safe.

Still, both you and they knew about hell and punishment before deciding to make Jesus their savior, right?


In an offhand sort of way. The same way one might mention Avalon or Arthur when discussing English History.So you knew the concepts beforehand. The concept of hell and punishment was a part of your belief and was probably a factor in persuading you to believe in Christianity.


Reading minds again?Why else would your parents believe in and push you toward Christianity? If they believe it themselves and believe in hell, they'd want to save you. Unless they simply don't believe in hell which would make their status as true practicing Christians questionable. I'm not aware of any Christian denomination that does not believe in the concepts of hell or evil.

I guess it's possible that your parents simply go to church out of habit or tradition, but why would they immerse you in it if they didn't actually believe what Christianity teaches? Apathy?


That's a guess. Evidence?Ok, I take it back. They hate you and are attempting to do every thing they can to push you into an early grave. That's what entering you into those "learning to swim with sharks" classes and "glass eating" competitions were for when you were a child.

Honestly. Parents typically want what is best for their child. This is why many parents push religious and political ideologies on their kids. They want their children to believe what they believe, because they feel what they believe is the best way to live.


That's another. Why is that a problem?I don't think it's a problem. Everyone does things selfishly. Reproduction and consumption are selfish. Believing a religious ideology because you will be rewarded or saved from punishment is also selfish.

Any Christian who knows the basics of their religion knows that hell is an eternal punishment. They believe it to be true and want to save themselves from it. It's a selfish act. I believe (and have no proof) that this perceived reality weighs heavily on their decision to become and stay a Christian.

I also believe that they attempt to spin their rationale for belief in a positive way. They say they do it for others. They say they do it for god (who gets nothing out of the transaction). They'd be a lot less likely to flat-out say "I do this so I don't go to hell." That doesn't sound very noble.


Still mindreading. Or just guessing and treating it as fact. Or do you know the exact reasons every single person who "gets into Christianity" has done so?Anyone who knows what Christianity is knows that hell is a punishment. How is it not a part of getting them to believe? Hell, calling Jesus your "savior" is being selfish. He is saving you from an eternity in hell. The entire concept of Christianity, at it's core, is selfish. There are positive aspects of the religion, but most seem to believe that good works aren't in and of themselves a key into heaven.


Wait- you asked him?The bible surely doesn't spell out what Jesus or god get out of you or I being saved. I've never heard or seen what they get out of the deal. All I've ever heard or read about is what we get out of the deal. The only person coming out ahead in the transaction is the converting Christian in question.

God is in heaven and will be for eternity, no matter what. Jesus is in heaven and will be for eternity, no matter what. You are going to hell if you do not accept Jesus as your savior. To get into heaven you have to accept Jesus as your savior. Who benefits from that? God, Jesus, Satan, or you?


What is wrong with that? If I sincerely thought that jumping out a window would save me from a burning building, would you scoff at me for being "selfish" for jumping?No, but I'd scoff at you if you said you jumped out of a window in order to help the world or in order to please god when you, in fact, did it to save yourself. That's my point.


I happen to think that "self interest" is a major component of everyone's beliefs, including yours, mine, Randi's Shermer's- everyone's. What is wrong with that?Nothing. I just like to call it what it is. Self interest or selfishness.

I work hard and work in the industry I do because I make good money doing it. I make money so I can buy things I like. I give to the people around me who I care for when they need things because I want them to be happy. I do it for myself. I sometimes make concessions and do things I don't want to do in order to get things I want, but the end result is still a net positive for myself. I'm selfish and so are Christians.


Just like others sterotype them as inherently "pathetic" people simply because they are Christian. It is one of many, many reasons. yet you only offered one. Why?I don't think they're inherently pathetic. I have very close friends and coworkers that I love and respect that are Christian.

Of the reasons for their belief, I offer that one up because any Christian who believes in the bible and being saved through Jesus should also believe in hell. Unless they want to pick and choose what to believe arbitrarily, it is a core tenet of their beliefs as a Christian. If you do not accept Jesus as your savior you go to hell. If you do not believe in god or deny the existence of god, you go to hell.


I think you'll find that I actually did have an answer. That wasn't even the same as yours, funnily enough.I think you've alluded to the fact that it is a selfish act. If there is nothing wrong with Christianity being a selfish act, why argue in the first place? Christians act out of self interest, just like non-Christians.


i don't know- ask him.I can't. Funny how he never seems to answer. He never did in my 10+ years as a believer either.

I still maintain that god and Jesus get nothing out of any single person converting to Christianity. The Christian being saved gets everything. There is no way that a conscious decision made with that in mind isn't in some way a selfish decision.


What difference does it make? Are we ants, that exist only to serve the collective?The difference is that Christians like to maintain that they believe to "glorify god" or do "help people" or to "make the world a better place." How often do you hear a Christian say "I believe this so I don't have to go to hell"?

I think that crosses all of their minds, but none of them seem to talk about it.


Any number of a great many possibilities, only a few of which I enumerated already. Ask the Christian.Salvation. They get to to to heaven and they get saved from hell. God and Jesus get nothing in return.


So? What is wrong with that?Nothing is wrong with it. If I believed in hell, I'd accept Jesus as my personal savior too. I just wouldn't pretend that I'm doing it for Jesus or for my friends or anyone else but myself. That's one reason why I stopped believing.


So? what is wrong with that? I presume you work, are you doing it to help your boss, or because you get paid?Because I get paid. I'm not against selfishness and I find it hypocritical that Christians are against selfishness when their entire salvation is selfish.

Christians aren't doing it for their coworkers or their boss. They're doing it to get paid, though they like to pretend they're in it for the love of the job and because they want to make the boss happy. Hell, they probably even believe they're doing it for the boss because that's why they think the boss exists, so you can love your job. In reality, the Christian simply wants to get paid, but doesn't want to act like they're doing it for the paycheck.

That's a pretty damn good analogy actually.


If that were true, and it may not be for every Christian- so what? what is "bad" about self interest?Nothing. I just like to call out the hypocrisy and sugar coating of the truth when I see it.


Some people can, yes. But people are not all the same. And if some are better people with Jesus than they would be without, doesn't it benefit you for them to follow Jesus?The same can be said of the reverse. Some people believe in Jesus and murder their children because god told them to. It didn't benefit their child for them to believe in Jesus, did it? I think that people are good and people are bad regardless of their religious beliefs.

I figure most people with no religion are good people just like most people who are Christians are good people. There are evil atheists and there are evil Christians.


No. Because when I was, I did not. "Hell" is not a big part of the Methodism in which I was raised, and I know many Christians for which "hell" is just as mythical (or at best, metaphorical) as hades.So they think that everyone goes to heaven? If so, why go to church or follow the religion at all?


Of some varieties of Christianity. There is not one "Chritianity". That's your fallacy.Is there any denomination of Christianity that does not have both heaven and hell? Is there a denomination of Christianity where everyone goes to heaven regardless of what they do?

All Christianity that I have ever seen or heard of, on some level, is based on choice and reward. The punishment for some may be the lack of reward, the punishment for others may be hell. Regardless, there is a choice to be made. One is good, the other is either outright bad, or not as good as the choice you can make by following god.


Great. Then I presume you withdraw the assertions dependent on that fallacious premise?While hyperbolic, I still hold that Christians believe in god or Jesus based on self interest and that they don't generally like to admit it.


Even if that is so, how is it your business?When they lie and say it isn't while preaching to the world, they make it my business. I could care less if a Christian does what he does out of self interest. If he's going to make an argument for his beliefs, I'm going to call him a liar if he implies that he isn't a Christian for mostly selfish reasons.


The simplest explanation is that you are mistaken in assuming what comprises a "basic element" of their belief.What denomination of Christianity has no hell, no heaven, or sends everyone to heaven regardless of their choices or conduct? The entire concept of Christianity is that Jesus died for our sins and that we can be saved or granted some benefit by believing in Jesus. That's the core of Christianity, correct?


That's the way most believers approach religion. That's why there are factions, schisms and sects in almost every faith. Why do you get to insist that Christians be fundamentalists or they are not "true Christians"?Why insist that Jesus' sacrifice is irrelevant in some denominations of Christianity? Jesus was sacrificed so we could be saved from sin. Many sects of Christianity squabble over little details, but to my knowledge, every single denomination of Christianity believes that you are either: 1) saved from hell and/or 2) granted entrance to heaven by believing and following Jesus.

Am I wrong?


Replace "Christians" with any other group of people and it is equally true. So what?You can probably guess how I'll answer this one. I wouldn't disagree with you here. I think everyone is selfish. The Christian often likes to pretend that he isn't.


So, not only are you assuming that your own personal experience of Christianity is the same as everyone else's, even after you leave you assume that one particular value of theirs still applies to everyone?Everyone is selfish to some degree. Everyone who believes in Jesus being the key to some sort of salvation is also selfish to some degree.


That might be true of the group from which you came, but you make an error extrapolating that to all Christians.Again, in which denomination of Christianity is there: 1) no benefit for believing in Jesus/god and/or 2) no punishment for not believing in Jesus/god?

To my knowledge, all sects of Christianity are based on this selfish principle of self preservation and they often like to paint their belief in a different light. They're all selfish but few admit it.


It can't be that the point you are trying to make is wrong, and the "half answers" and "dodging" are because your assumptions do not agree with their beliefs?In regards to the existence of evil on earth and not in heaven, I think it's because they don't really have an answer but believe what they believe based on faith alone. They have faith that it all makes sense, when it really doesn't.


What has that to do with what we are discussing?It's part of the discussion of Christian motivation. I always ask why hell and evil need to exist. I never get answers. Christians often seem to think that evil and sin do no exist in heaven, but that sin and evil must exist on earth in order for us to have free will. I ask them if free will can exist in heaven with no sin or evil, and the conversation usually stops there.

It wasn't really directly related to the discussion of self interest. A bit of an offshoot if you will.


Perhaps they are not "coherent" because they don't fit with what you assume they believe- or "should" believe. Your posts thusfar quite clearly demonstrate that your thinking does include certain assumptions.They do include assumptions. Because my assumptions are based on the basic tenets of Christianity and my experience in talking to Christians about what they believe.

I've still never had a Christian sit down and spell out a logical framework of why sin and evil exist, why sin and evil don't exist in heaven, and why sin and evil must exist here on earth. In my view, either free will does not exist in heaven, or there must be some logical reason why evil and sin are required for our life here on earth.

I never get a direct refutation of my points. The conversation simply trails off or goes around in a circle about some other point not relevant to the discussion.


What has that to do with what we are discussing?Again, sorry for the diversion. It was just an offshoot of motivation.

[willhaven]

What is wrong with that? Why does it matter? And why are the people that posit this ridiculous notion such rutting cowards about answering these questions?Sorry, I was out of town for the weekend. ;)

[bruto]

Willhaven, I still think you're missing a point here. If you actually believed that Jesus was real, and the son of God, and that what he said was right, and that the greatest virtue in life would be to follow Jesus, etc. etc., are you saying you'd still not be a Christian unless you were sure of going to hell if you weren't? I don't think so, and I think many Christians also would continue to believe what they believe whether or not the reward and punishment are part of it. Of course if you think you're going to go to heaven, you'll be happier about what you're doing, but I think plenty of people are prepared to do what they think is right simply because that's what they think is right. Atheists do. Why can't you accept that Christians can as well?

[willhaven]

Because, otherwise, they'd do it without Christianity. The only thing Christianity adds to the mix that atheism or secular humanism or general non-religious morality can't give them is passage into Christian heaven.

If they simply wanted to do the right thing, Christianity would be irrelevant. In order to do what you feel is right, you do not need to believe that Jesus is your savior. Christians accept Jesus as their savior because they don't want to go to hell. Pure and simple. The fact that there are some positives associated with Christianity is just sugar coating on the "do this or you will be punished/not rewarded" mantra.

There are positives to Christianity, but there are positives to simple ethics as well. The entire concept of Christianity hinges on gaining entrance into heaven.

If a Christian doesn't believe in going to hell for not following Jesus, what is the point of Jesus' sacrifice? What is the point of calling him a savior? What is the point of having a heaven and a hell if you don't have the choice as to which place you are headed?

The entire Christian religion is based on choice. A good choice and a double-plus-ungood choice. If you choose Jesus/god/belief/obedience, you are given the positive outcome. If you choose anything else, you either don't get your reward in heaven (limbo, oblivion, etc), or you are tormented in hell for eternity.

There may be different flavors as to what you get with each choice, but the choice is still there. Believe or suffer some consequence.

[kurious_kathy]

Its one thing to do good deeds because "God commanded me to do so". That just shows obedience to God.

Its a whole other thing to good deeds because "God said if I do nice things I'll go to Heaven". That shows a selfish state of mind.

Well Parky I am a follower of Christ and I do not believe doing good deeds earns me going to heaven. In fact I know there is absolutely no way I can ever deserve going to heaven, it's only by faith in Jesus and his finished work on the cross that gets anyone in. Tell me do you know Jesus died for your sins yet? I know without a doubt he paid my penalty for sin and what he suffered to save me or us he did not deserve, but he did it for love.

He loves you that much! I pray you will come to know and receive him like I did. Jesus is the one who spurs us all on by the power of his Holy Spirit to love and do good deeds. Not because we earn heaven by doing it, but because he fills us with his love for others and hopes others will see Christ living in and through every believers life. Do you understand this concept?

[arthwollipot]

Tell me do you know Jesus died for your sins yet? I know without a doubt he paid my penalty for sin and what he suffered to save me or us he did not deserve, but he did it for love.No, Kathy. We take responsibility for our own faults.

[Hokulele]

Do you understand this concept?


Yes, which is exactly why I reject it.

[AdinDraco]

<snip> In fact I know there is absolutely no way I can ever deserve going to heaven, it's only by faith in Jesus and his finished work on the cross that gets anyone in. <snip>

This is exactly why so many non-believers regard christianity as "evil". You have worth and are good and so am I. That your god has convinced you otherwise is a travesty.

[Piscivore]

The religion itself dictates hell as a punishment. In Christianity, hell has a function and a purpose. The purpose is to persuade you to make the right choice.
Not in all sects or flavours. There is not one Christianity. It certainly makes it easier to dismiss by assuming it is all one and the same, but that's just not factually accurate.

If anyone knows the basics of Christianity and chooses to become a Christian, they likely understand this and the threat of punishment in hell plays a role in their decision to become a Christian.
There's another generalisation error- not all Christians choose to become a Christian- a signifigant majority of them are Christian because that's what they are taught as children.

So why aren't they very devout? Why do they sporadically attend church?
It just wasn't that important to them. They went because that's what they were taught as children and because they felt it was expected of them to in turn teach it to their children. Also, there is a signifigant social factor, especially in our particular church.

As an ex-Christian, I'd be willing to bet it's because they're reasonable intelligent people who can see the absurdities and contradictions in the bible, but they still have that fear that it might possibly be real, so they still believe just to be safe.
Nope. They are not Pascal's wagerers. The parts of the religion they have always been the most concerned about- and this goes for the Methodism as a whole that I experienced-is the parts about being kind to and serving one's fellow human. That there are absurdidties and contradictions in the Bible was irrelevant, because maybe two people in the church were possibly literalists, and they were generally tolerated and privately laughed at.

Still, both you and they knew about hell and punishment before deciding to make Jesus their savior, right?
Nope. All of us were raised in some variety of Christianity from early childhood. And as I said, hell and punishment were not part of the standard fare in our church. I cannot ever remember a time when it was discussed from the pulpit, and I once trained to be a minister there. "Stewardship" was the centre of our church. Look it up.

So you knew the concepts beforehand. The concept of hell and punishment was a part of your belief and was probably a factor in persuading you to believe in Christianity.
No, absolutely not. As I said, I did not "choose" to believe, I was taught it in the same way I was taught how to tie my shoes. And you might want to look up the relationship of "Arthur" and "Avalon" to English history. They were not taught as anything more than speculation at best- more commonly, as metaphor.

Why else would your parents believe in and push you toward Christianity?
Because it was expected, because that's what they thought was the proper thing to do, like sending us to school to learn how to do math.

If they believe it themselves and believe in hell, they'd want to save you.
One of your "if"s is incorrect. They did not believe in hell. So your speculation about their motives is likewise incorrect.

You really shouldn't try to answer for other people out of your own biased beliefs. It'll steer you wrong every time.

Unless they simply don't believe in hell which would make their status as true practicing Christians questionable.
To who? You? When did you become the arbiter of what is "true Christianity"? The only thing necessary to be a Christian is to believe in Christ. Everything else is optional.

I'm not aware of any Christian denomination that does not believe in the concepts of hell or evil.
That just makes your assertions argument from ignorance.

Read, and learn:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/heav_hel.htm
Conservative and mainline Protestant denominations tend to base their belief on the literal interpretation of certain passages of the Bible, and symbolic interpretations of others. They arrive at very different beliefs because they select different passages to read literally.

Liberal Christians believe that the beliefs of the authors of the Bible evolved greatly over the approximately one millennia years during which the Bible was written. Thus, there is little internal consistency in the Bible about the afterlife. Many liberals remain agnostic on the existence and nature of any form of afterlife.

Faced with such a diversity of beliefs about life after death -- even within Christianity -- some people conclude that nobody really knows what happens when a person dies. But most Christians hold tenaciously to the beliefs taught by their own particular denomination. This satisfies one of the main needs that many people have of their religion: to give them a sense of security in the face of an uncertain and frightening world.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/hell.htm
Belief in hell is highest among regular churchgoers: 92% of those who attend church weekly believe in hell, as do 74% of those who attend nearly weekly.
Note this is less than 100% of Christians.

Same source:
In Christian theology, hell is the place or state into which unrepentant sinners pass after this life. Hell is generally thought to be eternal, and to include both punishment (poena sensus) and separation from God (poena damni).

Although not central to the Christian faith, the doctrine of hell has been a significant part of historical Christian theology throughout its history.

...For some, however, especially since the Enlightenment, hell has also been a major stumbling block to acceptance of Christianity. Some Christian groups no longer believe in an eternal hell, or at least regard belief in it as unnecessary.
And that's five minutes of Googling. I trust your myopia in this regard has been corrected.

I guess it's possible that your parents simply go to church out of habit or tradition, but why would they immerse you in it if they didn't actually believe what Christianity teaches? Apathy?
A sense of obligation. They most likely thought of it as the accepted way to instil morals and "goodness". Face the facts, just because your church and your faith was all about fear of pusnishment, doesn't mean every Christian's is.

Ok, I take it back. They hate you and are attempting to do every thing they can to push you into an early grave. That's what entering you into those "learning to swim with sharks" classes and "glass eating" competitions were for when you were a child.[quote]
You've been watching me raise my kids, have you?

[quote]Honestly. Parents typically want what is best for their child.
That does not mean every parent has the same idea about what is "best". It certainly doesn't suggest that the only reason parents teach their children about religion is fear of hell. That's the assertion for which you need to provide evidence, not that they may have thought what they were doing was what they saw as "best".

This is why many parents push religious and political ideologies on their kids. They want their children to believe what they believe, because they feel what they believe is the best way to live.
Most likely. But that doesn't make "what they believe" = "Fear of hell" because they are Christian.

I don't think it's a problem. Everyone does things selfishly. Reproduction and consumption are selfish. Believing a religious ideology because you will be rewarded or saved from punishment is also selfish.
And?

Any Christian who knows the basics of their religion knows that hell is an eternal punishment.
Demonstrated to be false.

They believe it to be true and want to save themselves from it.
Sometimes, not always.

It's a selfish act. I believe (and have no proof) that this perceived reality weighs heavily on their decision to become and stay a Christian.
I showed my evidence, show your "proof". Just saying you have it is meaningless.

I also believe that they attempt to spin their rationale for belief in a positive way.
Most people do, regardless of belief. This is meaningless.

They say they do it for others.
All of them? Evidence? How do you know they are not?

They say they do it for god (who gets nothing out of the transaction).
All of them? Evidence? How do you know they are not? (And how do you know what their god gets out of it, or doesn't?)

[quote]They'd be a lot less likely to flat-out say "I do this so I don't go to hell." That doesn't sound very noble.
You are assuming motivations again. Get out of the mindreading business. Maybe they don't say "I do this so I don't go to hell" becuase they are not doing it so they don't get into hell.

Anyone who knows what Christianity is knows that hell is a punishment.
Demonstrated to be false.

How is it not a part of getting them to believe?
Because sometimes it is not part of Christianity (as has been shown to be the case) and some people are not "convinced" to believe, but simply trained from childhood (also well evidenced).

Hell, calling Jesus your "savior" is being selfish.
So. What. Why is that a bad thing?

He is saving you from an eternity in hell.
Or, as was taught in my church, he is saving you from hurting yourself, i.e. damaging your soul, by commiting sins.

The entire concept of Christianity, at it's core, is selfish.
So. What. Why is that a bad thing?

There are positive aspects of the religion, but most seem to believe that good works aren't in and of themselves a key into heaven.

The bible surely doesn't spell out what Jesus or god get out of you or I being saved. I've never heard or seen what they get out of the deal.
More argument from ignorance- "I don't know what they get out of it, so it must be nothing". Please. :oldroll:

All I've ever heard or read about is what we get out of the deal.
The Bible was written for people, not god.

The only person coming out ahead in the transaction is the converting Christian in question. Even if this is the case- So what? Why is that a bad thing?

God is in heaven and will be for eternity, no matter what. Jesus is in heaven and will be for eternity, no matter what. You are going to hell if you do not accept Jesus as your savior. To get into heaven you have to accept Jesus as your savior. Who benefits from that? God, Jesus, Satan, or you?
Doesn't that just make Jesus a "pure" altruist? He helps you, does nto benefit in return? What exactly is your point?

No, but I'd scoff at you if you said you jumped out of a window in order to help the world or in order to please god when you, in fact, did it to save yourself. That's my point.
How do you know I didn't? Maybe I had the deactivation codes for a time vault containing a virulent biological sample that would be released if I didn't live to stop it opening?

You scoff because you think you know everything there is to know about the situations. I don't have to know very much to know you don't.

Nothing. I just like to call it what it is. Self interest or selfishness.
Do you make a point of calling out anything else blatantly obvious? If you are not trying to make some point to "call it what it is", why bother?

I work hard and work in the industry I do because I make good money doing it. I make money so I can buy things I like. I give to the people around me who I care for when they need things because I want them to be happy. I do it for myself. I sometimes make concessions and do things I don't want to do in order to get things I want, but the end result is still a net positive for myself. I'm selfish and so are Christians.
So what is the point?


I don't think they're inherently pathetic. I have very close friends and coworkers that I love and respect that are Christian.
The OP clearly does.

Of the reasons for their belief, I offer that one up because any Christian who believes in the bible and being saved through Jesus should also believe in hell.
Why do you get to dictate what a Christian "should" believe? Because it would make it easier on you if they all held the same belief? Because if you could require they believe in a cetain belief you feel you've already discounted, the whole faith is discounted in one fell swoop?

I've already shown that not all Christians do believe in hell, so where does your "should" come from?

Unless they want to pick and choose what to believe arbitrarily, it is a core tenet of their beliefs as a Christian.
Except they do pick and choose. All believers do. That's why there are schisms. Thats' another premise out the window, isn't it?

If you do not accept Jesus as your savior you go to hell. If you do not believe in god or deny the existence of god, you go to hell.
Already demonstrated that it is not a required belief. Without any correct premises, whatever point you are struggling to make is wrong before you begin.

I think you've alluded to the fact that it is a selfish act. If there is nothing wrong with Christianity being a selfish act, why argue in the first place? Christians act out of self interest, just like non-Christians.
That was my point. Parky disagreed. Said they were "pathetic" because they were selfish.

I can't. Funny how he never seems to answer. He never did in my 10+ years as a believer either.
Maybe he just doesn't like you. :)

I still maintain that god and Jesus get nothing out of any single person converting to Christianity. Even if that were true, and it is impossible to even test, it is irrelevant.

The Christian being saved gets everything. There is no way that a conscious decision made with that in mind isn't in some way a selfish decision.
Point?

The difference is that Christians like to maintain that they believe to "glorify god" or do "help people" or to "make the world a better place." How often do you hear a Christian say "I believe this so I don't have to go to hell"?
If you aren't hearing it you have to accept the possibility they aren't saying it because it isn't true.

I think that crosses all of their minds, but none of them seem to talk about it.
You think it crosses their minds, because you are predisposed to assume so by your own previous experiences and resistant to any notion otherwise because of your own confessed ignorance.

Salvation. They get to to to heaven and they get saved from hell. God and Jesus get nothing in return.
So what?

Nothing is wrong with it. If I believed in hell, I'd accept Jesus as my personal savior too. I just wouldn't pretend that I'm doing it for Jesus or for my friends or anyone else but myself. That's one reason why I stopped believing.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that anyone else is "pretending"?

Because I get paid. I'm not against selfishness and I find it hypocritical that Christians are against selfishness when their entire salvation is selfish.

Ah, so you are taking yet another unsubstantiated assumption about all Christians and combining it with the first one, and getting yourself all outraged about it. That's compounding two generalisation errors onto a nicely stuffed strawman.

Christians aren't doing it for their coworkers or their boss.
Don't pretend to read minds. You are just guessing what anyone "does it" for.

They're doing it to get paid, though they like to pretend they're in it for the love of the job and because they want to make the boss happy.
Again, do you have evidence anyone is "pretending"?

Hell, they probably even believe they're doing it for the boss because that's why they think the boss exists, so you can love your job.
I see, they say they are working to help their boss, and they believe they are working to help their boss, but you know better what their motivations really are? That's an amazing gift.

In reality, the Christian simply wants to get paid, but doesn't want to act like they're doing it for the paycheck.

That's a pretty damn good analogy actually.
In that it further illustrates the depths of your delusional and biased assumptions about people's "real" motivations, yes, it is. You haven't any way of determining any of the assumptions you make throughout this argument about what people are thinking, have you? Be honest.

Nothing. I just like to call out the hypocrisy and sugar coating of the truth when I see it.
You have yet to demonstrate any actually occuring outside your own assumptions and wild-assed speculation.

The same can be said of the reverse. Some people believe in Jesus and murder their children because god told them to. It didn't benefit their child for them to believe in Jesus, did it?
I dunno, did it? I don't know what kind of life they had prior to the act, and I can't see into alternate futures to know what their life would be like otherwise.

Can you?

I think that people are good and people are bad regardless of their religious beliefs.

I figure most people with no religion are good people just like most people who are Christians are good people. There are evil atheists and there are evil Christians.
"Good" "Bad" and "Evil" are subjective judgements. They aren't something one can "be", they are how another perceives what one does.

So they think that everyone goes to heaven? If so, why go to church or follow the religion at all?
To make one's own self, one's soul, better than it would be otherwise.

Is there any denomination of Christianity that does not have both heaven and hell?
Yes.

Is there a denomination of Christianity where everyone goes to heaven regardless of what they do?
Possibly.

All Christianity that I have ever seen or heard of, on some level, is based on choice and reward. The punishment for some may be the lack of reward, the punishment for others may be hell. Regardless, there is a choice to be made. One is good, the other is either outright bad, or not as good as the choice you can make by following god.
Argument from ignorance.

While hyperbolic, I still hold that Christians believe in god or Jesus based on self interest and that they don't generally like to admit it.
You do know that hyperbole is inherently unfactual, don't you?

You can emphatically "hold" whatever postition you want, without evidence it is not necessarily fact.

When they lie and say it isn't while preaching to the world, they make it my business.
Do you have evidence beyond your own assumptions they are lying?

I could care less if a Christian does what he does out of self interest. If he's going to make an argument for his beliefs, I'm going to call him a liar if he implies that he isn't a Christian for mostly selfish reasons.
What evidence do you have that you take as "implying" such.

And what business is it of yours if they are lying? Are you the "lying" police?
You do realise that just as everyone is selfish in some respect, everyone lies at some time, to some degree, yes?

What denomination of Christianity has no hell, no heaven, or sends everyone to heaven regardless of their choices or conduct?
I don't know, I'm not intimately familiar with the details of the multiplicity of flavours the religion comes in. Do your own googling.

The entire concept of Christianity is that Jesus died for our sins and that we can be saved or granted some benefit by believing in Jesus. That's the core of Christianity, correct?
Notice there's no "hell" or "punishment" in that?

Why insist that Jesus' sacrifice is irrelevant in some denominations of Christianity? Jesus was sacrificed so we could be saved from sin.
"Saved from sin" =/= "saved from hell". At least, not for everybody. See above.

Many sects of Christianity squabble over little details, but to my knowledge, every single denomination of Christianity believes that you are either: 1) saved from hell and/or 2) granted entrance to heaven by believing and following Jesus.
As I demonstrated, your "knowledge" is incomplete.

Am I wrong?
Yes.

You can probably guess how I'll answer this one. I wouldn't disagree with you here. I think everyone is selfish. The Christian often likes to pretend that he isn't.
Assuming motivations again. That's a really bad habit you've got. Please provinde evidence they are "pretending" anything.

In regards to the existence of evil on earth and not in heaven, I think it's because they don't really have an answer but believe what they believe based on faith alone. They have faith that it all makes sense, when it really doesn't.
It doesn't to you, because you have different initial premises. When you say "they don't have an answer" you mean " they don't have an answer I will accept" or "they don't have an answer that matches my premises instead of theirs", right?

It's part of the discussion of Christian motivation.
You need to just forget about "Christian motivation" right there. Each Christian is likely to have unique motivations for what they think and believe. Trying to lump them all together is an excercise in making one's self as incorrect as possible.


They do include assumptions. Because my assumptions are based on the basic tenets of Christianity and my experience in talking to Christians about what they believe. As demonstrated, your core assuptions about "the basic tenents of Christianity" are flawed, and thus anything that follows is most likely incorrect as well.

[willhaven]

There's another generalisation error- not all Christians choose to become a Christian- a signifigant majority of them are Christian because that's what they are taught as children.Even being born into Christianity, at some point you take a logical look at what you believe and weigh the cost/benefit ratio. Even if you are raised to believe that hell and heaven are merely symbolic, do you never question whether or not they may be real places?


It just wasn't that important to them. They went because that's what they were taught as children and because they felt it was expected of them to in turn teach it to their children. Also, there is a signifigant social factor, especially in our particular church.Nope. They are not Pascal's wagerers. The parts of the religion they have always been the most concerned about- and this goes for the Methodism as a whole that I experienced-is the parts about being kind to and serving one's fellow human. That there are absurdidties and contradictions in the Bible was irrelevant, because maybe two people in the church were possibly literalists, and they were generally tolerated and privately laughed at.So do your parents believe in either heaven or hell? Do the members of your church largely believe in either concepts of heaven or hell? Is heaven still in the cards for them? Or do they believe that they simply blink out of existence when they die?


Nope. They are not Pascal's wagerers. The parts of the religion they have always been the most concerned about- and this goes for the Methodism as a whole that I experienced-is the parts about being kind to and serving one's fellow human. That there are absurdidties and contradictions in the Bible was irrelevant, because maybe two people in the church were possibly literalists, and they were generally tolerated and privately laughed at.No, absolutely not. As I said, I did not "choose" to believe, I was taught it in the same way I was taught how to tie my shoes. And you might want to look up the relationship of "Arthur" and "Avalon" to English history. They were not taught as anything more than speculation at best- more commonly, as metaphor.So, if there is no literal heaven or hell, is there any punishment for disbelief? Are there any promises of reward if you do choose to believe?


You really shouldn't try to answer for other people out of your own biased beliefs. It'll steer you wrong every time.Oh, I realize I'm speaking in generalities. I don't honestly believe that every single Christian believes the exact same thing. I was, however, under the impression that every branch of Christianity believed in heaven and/or hell. Some carrot on the end of a stick that you are rewarded with if you choose to follow them. Something you are denied if you don't choose to follow them. Am I wrong? So some Methodists don't believe in a literal hell. Do they still believe in a literal heaven?


To who? You? When did you become the arbiter of what is "true Christianity"? The only thing necessary to be a Christian is to believe in Christ. Everything else is optional.Yes, and believing in Christ grants you something, correct? I guess I may have been wrong saying that all Christians believe in hell, while some apparently see it as only a metaphor. Do they also view heaven as a metaphor?


That just makes your assertions argument from ignorance.Ok, so I'm wrong there. Don't all Christians believe in heaven or some other form of reward for believing in and following Jesus? If they don't, is there any form of punishment from god for not being a Christian?


Read, and learn:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/heav_hel.htm

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/hell.htmInteresting! Still, from everything I see, read and experience about Christianity in my life, those who do not believe in some sort of afterlife appear to be a minority. Honestly, until now, I had never even heard of a branch of Christianity that teaches that hell and heaven are simply metaphorical places. Thanks for that.

I apologize for being hyperbolic earlier, but I still very much believe that most Christians choose to believe because they are afraid of disbelief. There are many facets of why they believe, but for most of them some sort of reward or punishment is on the line.


And that's five minutes of Googling. I trust your myopia in this regard has been corrected.Absolutely! Thanks. I'm not close minded an unable to listen to reason. I was honestly unaware of any major sect of Christianity that rejected the idea of any form of afterlife.

So not all Christians are selfish and make decisions to save themselves... just roughly 3/4 of them.


I showed my evidence, show your "proof". Just saying you have it is meaningless.I never said I had proof. I have experience and a belief. Apparently my belief was wrong. I still feel that my general sense is correct. I still feel that Christians who believe in the afterlife and the possibility of being denied a positive form of that afterlife are acting selfishly in their beliefs.


More argument from ignorance- "I don't know what they get out of it, so it must be nothing". Please. :oldroll:I am unaware of anything god or Jesus get out of a Christian following them. Do you know of anything they get as a result of conversion? Honestly, if some Christians have a concise statement of what god or Jesus get from a person following them, I'd like to know about it.

I'm not saying it absolutely doesn't exist. I just find it strange that I've never heard anything about it.


The Bible was written for people, not god.Yet The Bible goes into lots of detail about many things, but to my knowledge it never details what rewards are in it for god and Jesus when we choose to follow them. All of us could give them the finger and god spends an eternity in heaven with angels. In the beliefs of at least 3/4 of Christians, they would go to hell and there would be no detriment to god or Jesus.


Even if this is the case- So what? Why is that a bad thing?
Doesn't that just make Jesus a "pure" altruist? He helps you, does nto benefit in return? What exactly is your point?I just find it strange and often outright hypocritical that those who believe Jesus saves them from hell will often project their faith as "doing it for god" or "doing it to help others" while conveniently neglecting to mention how they are being saved. It seems as though they bury their biggest reason to believe in Christ and to keep believing in Christ under a mountain of things that will actually reflect more positively on their character. This has generally been my experience.


How do you know I didn't? Maybe I had the deactivation codes for a time vault containing a virulent biological sample that would be released if I didn't live to stop it opening?

You scoff because you think you know everything there is to know about the situations. I don't have to know very much to know you don't.And, without those vault codes, you'd just stand in the building and burn to death? You get to save yourself and you get to help other people. You get self preservation and you get to be a hero. Win-win!

Say the virulent agent will be released into a room of 10 randomly chosen people. A building is burning with the codes inside. How many people will search the burning building to find the codes to in order save 10 people? Not everyone. How many people will search the burning building to find the codes in order to save 5 people? Even fewer. How about in order to save 1 child molester? Even fewer.

Put burning alive in that building to save X# of people on the table and see how many people will choose the selfish option. In a Christianity where heaven and hell are real, every Christian wants to jump out of that window and not burn to death. Very few would take Jesus' position as a martyr. If entrance into heaven required being crucified, you'd have fewer Christians. If following Christianity and helping others was met with being sent to hell in the afterlife, you'd have fewer Christians.

Many Christians are Christians because they think they get something out of the deal when they die.


Do you make a point of calling out anything else blatantly obvious? If you are not trying to make some point to "call it what it is", why bother? Nothing like a good dose of reality. I got mine earlier apparently. :)


The OP clearly does.It doesn't mean I agree in every case. I don't think self-interest is pathetic. I think it's human nature.


Already demonstrated that it is not a required belief. Without any correct premises, whatever point you are struggling to make is wrong before you begin.I may have been painting with a broad brush, but I still believe that Christians who believe in an afterlife in heaven that is granted to them through a belief in Jesus are inherently selfish on some level.


Maybe he just doesn't like you. :) Yeah, he doesn't seem to like people asking difficult questions. The more questions I asked and the more inconsistencies I found, the less I believed.


Even if that were true, and it is impossible to even test, it is irrelevant.It's relevant if anyone professes to follow Christianity for Jesus or for god. If god or Jesus get nothing from you following them, why waste your time?


Do you have any evidence whatsoever that anyone else is "pretending"?I don't think Christians who believe they are being rewarded in the afterlife pretend that they aren't. I believe that they like to misrepresent how much the reward/benefit scenario dictates why they choose to and continue to believe in Christianity.

You think I didn't know some sects of Christianity teach both heaven and hell as simple metaphors. Did I really not know, or was I simply trying to get an angry reaction out of you by speaking in absolutes? You know which it is. Well, at least you have a good damn hunch.

The truth? I didn't know. I concede that.

My belief is that most Christians are inherently selfish in their beliefs and they don't like to admit it. Can I prove it? No. I never said I could.


Ah, so you are taking yet another unsubstantiated assumption about all Christians and combining it with the first one, and getting yourself all outraged about it. That's compounding two generalisation errors onto a nicely stuffed strawman.Good point actually, which I've conceded a few times above. Still not outraged. I enjoy this kind of dialogue. Why? Because I eventually learn something.

Eight years ago I would have been arguing for the existence of god in this thread. These kinds of threads are the reason why I am where I am with my atheism today. Honestly, thanks for teaching me something about Christianity that I didn't know before.


Don't pretend to read minds. You are just guessing what anyone "does it" for.Of course. Everyone who speaks in generalizations (even generalizations that are generally correct) will not be right about everything. That's why it's called a generalization and not a fact, or a rule or whatever.

Sorry if I spoke or implied that I knew everything about Christians. Obviously I didn't. There are some minority factions of Christians who don't believe what I generally think they believe. I still have a feeling that I am generally correct about the selfish behavior, however.


You do know that hyperbole is inherently unfactual, don't you?Absolutely.


You can emphatically "hold" whatever postition you want, without evidence it is not necessarily fact.Can anyone's inner thoughts an motivations ever be proven to be factual? All we can do is take their word or infer motivations based on their professed beliefs and actions.


Do you have evidence beyond your own assumptions they are lying?Nope, but I get the feeling that many Christians misrepresent the reasons for their belief. There is no way for you or I to prove one way or the other.


And what business is it of yours if they are lying? Are you the "lying" police?
You do realise that just as everyone is selfish in some respect, everyone lies at some time, to some degree, yes? If they speak up and preach, they make themselves a target. I don't profess my atheism to people on the street, though I do enjoy debating with Christians, atheists and ex-Christians in discussions like this.


I don't know, I'm not intimately familiar with the details of the multiplicity of flavours the religion comes in. Do your own googling.Not trying to make you my errand boy or anything. I just figured you might know offhand.


Notice there's no "hell" or "punishment" in that?But there is still some form of detriment to ones self for not believing right? For some, it is hell. For others, it is not being as good a person as you have the potential to be. Which ever way I can think of to look at it, the Christian in question is told that there are positives for belief in Jesus. They are told that Jesus is the way to reach those positive outcomes and that they are unreachable without Jesus.


Assuming motivations again. That's a really bad habit you've got. Please provinde evidence they are "pretending" anything.It's impossible to prove one way or the other. But Christianity is supposed to be a net positive for the Christian. Why would anyone believe in Christianity if it were a zero sum game? Why would anyone believe in Christianity if it would inherently cause them harm?


It doesn't to you, because you have different initial premises. When you say "they don't have an answer" you mean " they don't have an answer I will accept" or "they don't have an answer that matches my premises instead of theirs", right?No, as evidenced above, I'm open to the possibility that I am wrong or that I do not know everything. That's how I went from Christianity to atheism. I asked questions of other Christians about things that made no sense to me. Even when I was a believer I could never take a Christian who believes in faith, free will, heaven and hell and walk them through every step of how all of those concepts interact.

I want to see how they think and try to figure out why they can believe and I can't. I think it's fascinating. I've tried really damn hard over the years to walk through that with any afterlife-believing Christian and have never been successful.

Being open to being wrong and open to asking and answering tough questions is what got me here from where I was in my late teens and early twenties.


You need to just forget about "Christian motivation" right there. Each Christian is likely to have unique motivations for what they think and believe. Trying to lump them all together is an excercise in making one's self as incorrect as possible.Lumping them all together is foolish, I agree. But most Christians do believe in an afterlife. Most Christians do believe that Jesus as being the only way to reach it. In that case, I feel that Christians are inherently selfish and that they often gloss over that inherent selfishness.


As demonstrated, your core assuptions about "the basic tenents of Christianity" are flawed, and thus anything that follows is most likely incorrect as well.Honestly, thanks for proving me wrong. I like to be wrong now and then. I was really unaware that some sects of Christianity simply rejected heaven and hell as real places. I always figured it was a rogue Christian who was lazy or picked and chose as they found it convenient who believed those things.

Still, I think my general premise has some weight to it. It isn't an absolute, and honestly, I'm not much of a believer in absolutes. My language is often pointed, harsh and concise, so some of the nuances are lost in translation or even forgotten by myself.

[Maia]

He loves you that much! I pray you will come to know and receive him like I did. Jesus is the one who spurs us all on by the power of his Holy Spirit to love and do good deeds. Not because we earn heaven by doing it, but because he fills us with his love for others and hopes others will see Christ living in and through every believers life. Do you understand this concept?

Actually, yes, I do understand this concept. But it isn't the same concept as:

In fact I know there is absolutely no way I can ever deserve going to heaven, it's only by faith in Jesus and his finished work on the cross that gets anyone in. Tell me do you know Jesus died for your sins yet? I know without a doubt he paid my penalty for sin and what he suffered to save me or us he did not deserve, but he did it for love.


The first is a spiritual concept. The second is a fruitless attempt to pretend that the symbolic language early Christians used to understand the importance which Jesus held for them has any literal meaning. Jesus didn't die for our sins; he died because the Romans hated what he was doing and the message he was spreading.

[bruto]

Even being born into Christianity, at some point you take a logical look at what you believe and weigh the cost/benefit ratio. <snip>.

I snipped the rest, because I think you have a problem right there. I don't think taking a logical look at faith and calculating the cost/benefit ratio are at all the same. Many people believe what they believe simply because they think it's true. You may well look at it logically, and rethink (or lose) your faith. That certainly happens often enough. But whether it is convenient or rewarding or a good bet is simply not the same question. If you believe that God is dispensing eternal reward and punishment, you already believe in God, and already have become convinced of the truth of whatever doctrine is involved. Not that there's much good to say about the threat of eternal flame by religious authorities, or the heaven-bound gloating of the kurious or the backward-spelled, but I think that if you take that as the motivation for faith itself, you're getting the process backward yourself.

[willhaven]

If you believe that God is dispensing eternal reward and punishment, you already believe in God, and already have become convinced of the truth of whatever doctrine is involved.Not true, no one intrinsically believes in the concept of Christianity. At some point you make a conscious decision to believe or reject what you are told in regards to Christianity. But the threat of punishment could make a pretty convincing case for belief. You may not intrinsically believe what you're told, but you'd be damned if you're going to spend an eternity in this "hell" they're talking about. It sounds like a pretty bad place and these other people seem pretty convinced that it's real. Maybe it is. Maybe they have a point.

No one is born believing in Christianity. Every Christian living today has been told what Christianity is and what it can do for them. Everyone makes a decision to accept or reject what they are told.

Everything my parents ever told me about the world passed from "they told me to believe this, I may not understand it, but they told me so it must be true." As I got older, all of my moral conflicts and religious beliefs were scrutinized and had to be reconciled with new beliefs and things I learned as I grew up.

Unless you're simply willing to believe what you are told with no further inquiry, you weigh your beliefs. You weigh the plusses and minuses. What would be the point in having a belief without having made a conscious decision to accept or reject it?

For the record, my parents weren't religious and told me about absurdities in the bible before I ever went to church. They let me go for a decade or so before I finally started asking questions for my own benefit and eventually stopped going. The pressure from Christian friends and the want to fit in was fairly strong. What kept me holding on was the fear of punishment.

I asked questions of Christians and myself for years and finally came to the conclusion that it simply doesn't make sense. I try to walk through my case for disbelief with Christians all the time and never get anywhere with it. I'm honestly interested in why they believe where I can't. I propose my view of what I see and ask questions and I never get coherent answers. I get diversions or they disappear.

[bruto]

Not true, no one intrinsically believes in the concept of Christianity. I never said it was intrinsic. At some point you make a conscious decision to believe or reject what you are told in regards to Christianity. But the threat of punishment could make a pretty convincing case for belief.I cannot see why. The threat is only valid if you already believe in what is doing the threatening. The Pope himself could stand before me and tell me that I am going to go to hell, I could read Dante's Inferno, and Kent Hovind and Yrreg and Kurious Kathy could all sing maledictions to me, and it wouldn't make a goddam bit of difference, because I don't believe it! You may not intrinsically believe what you're told, but you'd be damned if you're going to spend an eternity in this "hell" they're talking about. It sounds like a pretty bad place and these other people seem pretty convinced that it's real. Maybe it is. Maybe they have a point. I really don't think so. If you think they have a point it's because you already believe something.

No one is born believing in Christianity. Every Christian living today has been told what Christianity is and what it can do for them. Everyone makes a decision to accept or reject what they are told. True enough, that. I just don't think it means the same thing you do.

Everything my parents ever told me about the world passed from "they told me to believe this, I may not understand it, but they told me so it must be true." As I got older, all of my moral conflicts and religious beliefs were scrutinized and had to be reconciled with new beliefs and things I learned as I grew up.

Unless you're simply willing to believe what you are told with no further inquiry, you weigh your beliefs. You weigh the plusses and minuses. What would be the point in having a belief without having made a conscious decision to accept or reject it?all of that seems true enough, but again, I think it is beside the point of the threat of eternal punisment, etc.

For the record, my parents weren't religious and told me about absurdities in the bible before I ever went to church. They let me go for a decade or so before I finally started asking questions for my own benefit and eventually stopped going. The pressure from Christian friends and the want to fit in was fairly strong. What kept me holding on was the fear of punishment.

I asked questions of Christians and myself for years and finally came to the conclusion that it simply doesn't make sense. I try to walk through my case for disbelief with Christians all the time and never get anywhere with it. I'm honestly interested in why they believe where I can't. I propose my view of what I see and ask questions and I never get coherent answers. I get diversions or they disappear.And here, I think, is the crux of the problem. If you cannot understand faith, you're in a poor position to understand its motivation. You'll never get coherent answers anyway, because faith is not a fundamentally rational decision. You may well be right about heaven and hell being instrumental in keeping some people, especially those who lack real conviction, in line, but I've never met anyone of real, deep religious conviction - a true believer - for whom that was more than a fringe benefit. The people I know who have real faith are convinced that the world is a certain way. Heaven and Hell may be a big part of what they believe, but it is little or nothing of why.

[Piscivore]

Even being born into Christianity, at some point you take a logical look at what you believe and weigh the cost/benefit ratio. Even if you are raised to believe that hell and heaven are merely symbolic, do you never question whether or not they may be real places?
No, not necessarily.

So do your parents believe in either heaven or hell?
Not hell. Maybe some sort of afterlife you might call "heaven". Nothing like the "live in eternal bliss praising god all the live-long day" sort of heaven, though.

Do the members of your church largely believe in either concepts of heaven or hell?
You'd have to ask them. I haven't gone in twenty years. Back in my day it was not the focus.

Is heaven still in the cards for them? Or do they believe that they simply blink out of existence when they die?
Nearly all of them believed in some sort of afterlife. I couldn't tell you what the precise nature of that afterlife might be.

So, if there is no literal heaven or hell, is there any punishment for disbelief?
Is there "punishment" when you ignore your doctor's instructions when you are sick?

Are there any promises of reward if you do choose to believe?
Are there promises of reward when you take your prescriptions?

Oh, I realize I'm speaking in generalities. I don't honestly believe that every single Christian believes the exact same thing. I was, however, under the impression that every branch of Christianity believed in heaven and/or hell. Some carrot on the end of a stick that you are rewarded with if you choose to follow them. Something you are denied if you don't choose to follow them. Am I wrong? So some Methodists don't believe in a literal hell. Do they still believe in a literal heaven?
Many do, I'm sure. Some don't.

Yes, and believing in Christ grants you something, correct? I guess I may have been wrong saying that all Christians believe in hell, while some apparently see it as only a metaphor. Do they also view heaven as a metaphor?
I've heard that said, yes. That it is the Church's responsibility to create the kingdom of heaven on Earth.

Ok, so I'm wrong there. Don't all Christians believe in heaven or some other form of reward for believing in and following Jesus? If they don't, is there any form of punishment from god for not being a Christian?
The same sort of "punishment" as ignoring the doctor gets you.

Interesting! Still, from everything I see, read and experience about Christianity in my life, those who do not believe in some sort of afterlife appear to be a minority. Honestly, until now, I had never even heard of a branch of Christianity that teaches that hell and heaven are simply metaphorical places. Thanks for that.
No problem.

I apologize for being hyperbolic earlier, but I still very much believe that most Christians choose to believe because they are afraid of disbelief. There are many facets of why they believe, but for most of them some sort of reward or punishment is on the line.
And on what evidence do you base that belief?

Absolutely! Thanks. I'm not close minded an unable to listen to reason. I was honestly unaware of any major sect of Christianity that rejected the idea of any form of afterlife.

So not all Christians are selfish and make decisions to save themselves... just roughly 3/4 of them.
Why does it matter?

I never said I had proof. I have experience and a belief. Apparently my belief was wrong. I still feel that my general sense is correct. I still feel that Christians who believe in the afterlife and the possibility of being denied a positive form of that afterlife are acting selfishly in their beliefs.
On what evidence do you base that belief? And why does it matter?

I am unaware of anything god or Jesus get out of a Christian following them. Do you know of anything they get as a result of conversion? Honestly, if some Christians have a concise statement of what god or Jesus get from a person following them, I'd like to know about it.
The answer I'd have probably given when I was training to be a minister was that they prefer not seeing us choose to suffer unnecessarily because of our own sinful actions. As a parent I can very musch relate to this- you tell kids that doing this-and-such will end in tears, but sometimes they try and do it anyway. It's gratifying when they do listen.

Yet The Bible goes into lots of detail about many things, but to my knowledge it never details what rewards are in it for god and Jesus when we choose to follow them.
Why should it? it's not written for them. It talks about what concerns us.
And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because there isn't any benefit to god explicity spelled out in the bible doesn't mean there isn't any.

But as I recall, one of the things the bible mentions frequently as something he "wants"- obedience. That would be something he "gets" from his followers.

I just find it strange and often outright hypocritical that those who believe Jesus saves them from hell will often project their faith as "doing it for god" or "doing it to help others" while conveniently neglecting to mention how they are being saved.
Why? Who is obligated to explain every nuance of their motivations every time they act?

It seems as though they bury their biggest reason to believe in Christ and to keep believing in Christ under a mountain of things that will actually reflect more positively on their character. This has generally been my experience.
But if "not going to hell" isn't a bad reason to believe in Christ, why would they bother "burying" it? It's a lot simpler explanation that "hell and punishment" simply isn't the biggest reason they believe in Christ. You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, assuming that people are lying about what they believe because it does nto agree with what you want their motivation to be.

Many Christians are Christians because they think they get something out of the deal when they die.
So?

Nothing like a good dose of reality. I got mine earlier apparently. :)
That really doesn't answer the questions. Do you make a point of calling out anything else blatantly obvious? If you are not trying to make some point to "call it what it is", why bother?

It doesn't mean I agree in every case. I don't think self-interest is pathetic. I think it's human nature.
Then why are you taking such pains to accuse Christians of having "selfish" beliefs?

I may have been painting with a broad brush, but I still believe that Christians who believe in an afterlife in heaven that is granted to them through a belief in Jesus are inherently selfish on some level.
So what? If self interest is just "human nature" what is your point? Are Christians not meant to be human?

It's relevant if anyone professes to follow Christianity for Jesus or for god. If god or Jesus get nothing from you following them, why waste your time?
If self interest is just "human nature" why should you expect that Christians act otherwise and be concerned about what god gets out of it?

I don't think Christians who believe they are being rewarded in the afterlife pretend that they aren't. I believe that they like to misrepresent how much the reward/benefit scenario dictates why they choose to and continue to believe in Christianity.
On what evidence do you believe that?

You think I didn't know some sects of Christianity teach both heaven and hell as simple metaphors. Did I really not know, or was I simply trying to get an angry reaction out of you by speaking in absolutes?
There are only a few ways to get an angry reaction out of me, this isn't one of them. Being deliberately obtuse just make you look bad, I don't mind that. :)

You know which it is. Well, at least you have a good damn hunch.
Now you're reading my mind?

The truth? I didn't know. I concede that.

My belief is that most Christians are inherently selfish in their beliefs and they don't like to admit it. Can I prove it? No. I never said I could.
I dodn't ask you to "prove" it. I asked what evidence on which you based your belief. If there isn't any, and it's just based on something like hard feelings or dislike of Christianity, how is that any better than their faith?


Honestly, thanks for teaching me something about Christianity that I didn't know before.
You are welcome.

Of course. Everyone who speaks in generalizations (even generalizations that are generally correct) will not be right about everything. That's why it's called a generalization and not a fact, or a rule or whatever.
In fact, when you get right down to it, speaking in generalisations is almost a guarantee one will eventually not be right about anything.

Can anyone's inner thoughts an motivations ever be proven to be factual? All we can do is take their word or infer motivations based on their professed beliefs and actions.
Without evidence any such inference is based on little more than our own biases and hindered by our own ignorance. Better to just ignore "motivations" and just look at what they do.

If you get into behaviourism at all "motivations" themselves become meaningless.

Nope, but I get the feeling that many Christians misrepresent the reasons for their belief. There is no way for you or I to prove one way or the other.
That's an untestable claim then, and is no different from any other faith-based belief. Why entertain it at all?

What difference does it make to you if they do "misrepresent the reasons for their belief"?

If they speak up and preach, they make themselves a target.
"A target"?

Not trying to make you my errand boy or anything. I just figured you might know offhand.
I don't, sorry.

But there is still some form of detriment to ones self for not believing right? For some, it is hell. For others, it is not being as good a person as you have the potential to be. Which ever way I can think of to look at it, the Christian in question is told that there are positives for belief in Jesus. They are told that Jesus is the way to reach those positive outcomes and that they are unreachable without Jesus.
And? People who get vaccines are told there are positive outcomes from getting stuck in the arm. People who buy a particular brand of some product are told there are positive outcomes from using the product. i fail to see a problem with this.

Lumping them all together is foolish, I agree. But most Christians do believe in an afterlife. Most Christians do believe that Jesus as being the only way to reach it. In that case, I feel that Christians are inherently selfish and that they often gloss over that inherent selfishness.
So what? As you say, that's just "human nature". If you don't have a problem with it when Christians do it, why are you going to such repetitious lengths to point it out when you think they exhibit slefish behaviour?

Honestly, thanks for proving me wrong. I like to be wrong now and then. I was really unaware that some sects of Christianity simply rejected heaven and hell as real places. I always figured it was a rogue Christian who was lazy or picked and chose as they found it convenient who believed those things.
Nope, it's another aspect of "human nature".

Still, I think my general premise has some weight to it. It isn't an absolute, and honestly, I'm not much of a believer in absolutes. My language is often pointed, harsh and concise, so some of the nuances are lost in translation or even forgotten by myself.
Sounds like a recipe for error.

[willhaven]

The Pope himself could stand before me and tell me that I am going to go to hell, I could read Dante's Inferno, and Kent Hovind and Yrreg and Kurious Kathy could all sing maledictions to me, and it wouldn't make a goddam bit of difference, because I don't believe it!
I really don't think so. If you think they have a point it's because you already believe something.Persuasion. Threats and promises are persuasion to believe what they want you to.

If you believe that Christians do not intrinsically believe their faith (which is true), what persuades them to believe their faith?

I have plenty of beliefs that I hold today that I didn't hold a year ago, or even a week ago (this thread is proof). What persuaded me? Opinions and evidence. For some, threats and scare tactics are equally as persuasive.


True enough, that. I just don't think it means the same thing you do.
all of that seems true enough, but again, I think it is beside the point of the threat of eternal punisment, etc.If a Christian believes in heaven and/or hell, how can it be possible that the cost or believing or not believing escapes them? Are they oblivious to their own beliefs? Is that even possible?

I think that if you believe there is a choice to be made that directly affects your well being, you will make the choice that is better for you. It's self interest. Human nature. If a Christian believes in heaven and/or hell, that benefit that they have chosen for themselves has to be conscious on some level.


And here, I think, is the crux of the problem. If you cannot understand faith, you're in a poor position to understand its motivation. You'll never get coherent answers anyway, because faith is not a fundamentally rational decision.As a Christian I thought I understood faith. I knew my motivations and I had some insight on the motivations of others. I try to understand faith. I try to decipher why others believe and I cannot.

Still, even the most altruistic Christian who believes in heaven and/or hell has knowingly made a decision to save themselves or weighed the cost of belief VS disbelief.

From my perspective, hell or being denied heaven serves no other purpose.

[bruto]

Persuasion. Threats and promises are persuasion to believe what they want you to.

If you believe that Christians do not intrinsically believe their faith (which is true), what persuades them to believe their faith?

I have plenty of beliefs that I hold today that I didn't hold a year ago, or even a week ago (this thread is proof). What persuaded me? Opinions and evidence. For some, threats and scare tactics are equally as persuasive.


If a Christian believes in heaven and/or hell, how can it be possible that the cost or believing or not believing escapes them? Are they oblivious to their own beliefs? Is that even possible?

I think that if you believe there is a choice to be made that directly affects your well being, you will make the choice that is better for you. It's self interest. Human nature. If a Christian believes in heaven and/or hell, that benefit that they have chosen for themselves has to be conscious on some level.


As a Christian I thought I understood faith. I knew my motivations and I had some insight on the motivations of others. I try to understand faith. I try to decipher why others believe and I cannot.

Still, even the most altruistic Christian who believes in heaven and/or hell has knowingly made a decision to save themselves or weighed the cost of belief VS disbelief.

From my perspective, hell or being denied heaven serves no other purpose.

I don't know whether there's any point it continuing to argue this, but I still think you have picked this one up by the wrong handle. Of course people are taught and persuaded what to believe. But adhering to some doctrine out of fear of punishment is not all there is to faith. It seems pretty clear (to me at least) that you cannot believe in the consequences of heaven and hell without first believing that they exist, and that there is a god, or whatever agency, in charge of them. That belief, that faith, comes from some other source. If I came to you and said I'm going to send you to hell if you don't do what I say, you'd rightly say "**** you!" or some other colorful expletive, because clearly, you do not believe that I have the authority to do it.

Of course you will make a choice that you believe is better for you, but only if you have the ability to believe that what you're choosing is real. If this were not so, then every horny Christian teenager would become a Muslim martyr for the virgins. Heaven and hell keep the faithful in line, but what use are they if you don't already believe in them? I think you're confusing or conflating faith with obedience to rules and doctrines.

In any event, I think we've about argued this one to death, and all I will say in closing is that I think you have missed something here. There are abundant reasons for rejecting theism in general, and Christianity in particular, but to trivialize the motivation of faith does neither side much service.

[pchams]

I think faith stems from fear of the unknown.
If one considers that they don't know almost everything, it's a pretty small leap, for the preservation of self, to believing something greater than self will
look after it. It's a calamity of birth, or life really.

[willhaven]

Not hell. Maybe some sort of afterlife you might call "heaven". Nothing like the "live in eternal bliss praising god all the live-long day" sort of heaven, though.
Nearly all of them believed in some sort of afterlife. I couldn't tell you what the precise nature of that afterlife might be.Do they (parents or others from your old church) think that everyone goes there regardless of their beliefs or behavior?


Is there "punishment" when you ignore your doctor's instructions when you are sick?Depends what the doctor is offering. Do I have terminal cancer that he has a cure for? Will he grant me an eternal afterlife if I follow his instructions? If something like that is the case, the punishment for not following his instructions is death.


And on what evidence do you base that belief?Self preservation is human nature. If a Christian believes in a reward for their faith and a punishment or lack of reward for a lack of faith, they have made a selfish decision. Who in their right mind would believe they will be punished for selecting Option B and still choose Option B?

Even martyrs will still be rewarded. They may go through pain and suffering, but it's OK because they believe it is only temporary and that a reward still awaits them.


Why does it matter?Like I keep saying. I find it interesting that no Christians seem to highlight this selfish decision that many of them make. Many Christians would view selfishness as a negative trait, while many of them have their religious beliefs based on a selfish decision. They like to believe that their faith will lead them away from evil human failings, but their religion includes some of those failings.


The answer I'd have probably given when I was training to be a minister was that they prefer not seeing us choose to suffer unnecessarily because of our own sinful actions. As a parent I can very musch relate to this- you tell kids that doing this-and-such will end in tears, but sometimes they try and do it anyway. It's gratifying when they do listen.Which would bring me to my next question that I usually ask. If god is acting like a parent with a child in that regard, why is it too late to convert after you die? While you live and breathe all sins can be forgiven and you can be saved. The moment you die, if you haven't been saved, you're too late. Or, at least according to the majority of Christians anyway.


Why should it? it's not written for them. It talks about what concerns us.
And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because there isn't any benefit to god explicity spelled out in the bible doesn't mean there isn't any.

But as I recall, one of the things the bible mentions frequently as something he "wants"- obedience. That would be something he "gets" from his followers.That is a good point. But how does that fit in with what I brought up in the previous paragraph? Many Christians seem to believe that, if you die without accepting Jesus, your chances are all spent. If god wanted to save us and wanted obedience, why is blind faith an absolute requirement? Why do so many Christians believe that it's do or die while you are mortal?


Why? Who is obligated to explain every nuance of their motivations every time they act?It's not that they don't explain it. It's that they'd likely deny it. See paragraph 4 again.


But if "not going to hell" isn't a bad reason to believe in Christ, why would they bother "burying" it? It's a lot simpler explanation that "hell and punishment" simply isn't the biggest reason they believe in Christ. You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, assuming that people are lying about what they believe because it does nto agree with what you want their motivation to be.But it is a part of their motivation. If they believe in plusses and minuses for faith or lack thereof, they will instinctively make the selfish decision, unless they are self destructive. Again, see paragraph 4 for a reason to bury what many Christians view as an ungodly human failing that many of them actively follow as a Christian.


So?It's selfish. At least to some degree.


That really doesn't answer the questions. Do you make a point of calling out anything else blatantly obvious? If you are not trying to make some point to "call it what it is", why bother? I've brought up my point before. I find it interesting and hypocritical that many Christians who make selfish choices in the selection of religious belief would likely deny it as being a selfish act. At the best, they'd probably downplay that role.

Show me a religion where the adherents do good things for others, follow a prophet who wants to make the world a better place, and the payoff is an eternity of torment. That religion wouldn't have too many followers. Why? Nothing in it for the adherents of that religion.


Then why are you taking such pains to accuse Christians of having "selfish" beliefs?Because they would often deny having any selfish tendencies in regards to their religion.


If self interest is just "human nature" why should you expect that Christians act otherwise and be concerned about what god gets out of it?Because I think those who believe in some benefit for their faith should be able to accept that they make a selfish choice.


On what evidence do you believe that?If they believe in a cost/benefit scenario, they make the decision that is a benefit to them. At least 3/4 of Christians believe in that sort of scenario. How many of them do you honestly think would describe their rationale for belief as self-interest or selfishness? They may use a euphemism saying that "Jesus is my savior" or something else that really means "I get something out of the deal."


Now you're reading my mind?You rightly called me out as being ignorant of some facts. You obviously believed that I was ignorant, and I was. Your hunch was correct.

You don't have to be a psychic to be able to get a pretty good bead on people's positions, intentions and future behavior by looking at what they profess to believe.


I dodn't ask you to "prove" it. I asked what evidence on which you based your belief. If there isn't any, and it's just based on something like hard feelings or dislike of Christianity, how is that any better than their faith?I just think they need to be honest with themselves. I ask logical questions of their beliefs to compare them with my current and past beliefs and I usually get a runaround or outright refusal to answer questions. I get this no matter how gentlemanly I enter into the conversation and how politely I ask the questions.


In fact, when you get right down to it, speaking in generalisations is almost a guarantee one will eventually not be right about anything.That isn't true. Christians generally believe in hell. One can generally hold that to be true in the majority of cases.

Without generalizations, expectations, stereotypes, etc, human beings would be overwhelmed. It doesn't mean all of them are true, but when they are, they can be generally regarded as true except in some instances.


Without evidence any such inference is based on little more than our own biases and hindered by our own ignorance. Better to just ignore "motivations" and just look at what they do.

If you get into behaviourism at all "motivations" themselves become meaningless.The behavior only bothers me when it is hypocritical. If they profess belief in one ideal (rejecting human frailties such as selfishness) and myopically disregard their own religion's emphasis on those ideals as being a positive thing, their motivations should come into question.


That's an untestable claim then, and is no different from any other faith-based belief. Why entertain it at all?

What difference does it make to you if they do "misrepresent the reasons for their belief"?It doesn't make any difference to me unless they attempt to convert me or are in a position to push morality based legislation. Then people who think that way and want those ideas propagated have a voice. A voice I think they should keep to themselves.

That said, I enjoy discussing that belief, but when people want to evangelize to others their beliefs should come into question. I don't pester or degrade Christians who do not preach or enter willingly into philosophical/theological discussions like this. Hell, I usually just ignore those that do preach and evangelize. It's rare when I step up and call someone misguided or crazy for believing what they do. Incredibly rare.


And? People who get vaccines are told there are positive outcomes from getting stuck in the arm. People who buy a particular brand of some product are told there are positive outcomes from using the product. i fail to see a problem with this.The bigger the benefit, the greater the affection you have for the choice you make, right? If you get a vaccine that makes you immune to all forms of virus or bacteria, that's something to be really happy about right? If you buy a used Geo Metro when you used to simply walk, it's cool, but not much to brag about. If you buy a Ferrari, that's something to enjoy right?

Where would you place heaven on that sliding scale? Geo Metro or Ferrari? Many Christians seem to think they've got a Ferrari waiting for them. Some will pretend that it's only a Geo Metro or that it might as well be one. Some will admit it's a Ferrari, but they only want it so they can give glory to the people who designed and built it when they're really more interested in driving it than they lead you to believe.

That is the behavior that I find really interesting.


So what? As you say, that's just "human nature". If you don't have a problem with it when Christians do it, why are you going to such repetitious lengths to point it out when you think they exhibit slefish behaviour?Because many view that kind of selfish behavior as a negative trait when, in reality, their very own view of that religion hinges on making a selfish choice for themselves.


Sounds like a recipe for error.Maybe, but it is just human nature after all.

[willhaven]

Of course people are taught and persuaded what to believe. But adhering to some doctrine out of fear of punishment is not all there is to faith.It's a major component for the majority of Christians. Take a Christian that believes in heaven and hell. Now pretend that heaven and hell are reversed. They go to church every Sunday and tithe their 10%. They volunteer a few times a month to help their community. They pray nightly for others in as selfless a way as possible. They go against their human nature and try to live the life that Jesus wants them to live. When they die, they go to hell for eternity.

If that were the Christian view of the world and the afterlife, Christianity would not have many followers, would it?

I will agree that there may be positive aspects to the religion, but when you reverse the important either/or choice you make when becoming a Christian, it becomes much less appealing, wouldn't you agree? How many Christians would continue to be Christians if they thought they were going to hell as a result and that they'd go to heaven if they worshiped Satan or Zeus instead?

For those Christians that believe in heaven and hell, it is absolutely pivotal.


It seems pretty clear (to me at least) that you cannot believe in the consequences of heaven and hell without first believing that they exist, and that there is a god, or whatever agency, in charge of them. That belief, that faith, comes from some other source. If I came to you and said I'm going to send you to hell if you don't do what I say, you'd rightly say "**** you!" or some other colorful expletive, because clearly, you do not believe that I have the authority to do it. That's what all of the other good stories in the bible are there for. If Christianity was a one page pamphlet with "believe in Jesus, or you go to hell" written on it, it wouldn't be very convincing.


Of course you will make a choice that you believe is better for you, but only if you have the ability to believe that what you're choosing is real.You can be convinced that it is real by vague threats or happy anecdotes which may or may not be true. Many people believe that the loch ness monster is real. They don't choose to believe in it because they believe it is real. That doesn't make any sense. They choose to believe it because they look at what people show them and tell them and they make a judgment to believe that it is real.

Christianity uses stories, promises and threats in order to coerce potential followers to convert to Christianity.


In any event, I think we've about argued this one to death, and all I will say in closing is that I think you have missed something here. There are abundant reasons for rejecting theism in general, and Christianity in particular, but to trivialize the motivation of faith does neither side much service.It did me a great service. When I began to question my own motivations and the motivations of others in their faith, I found my beliefs to be false.

[hamelekim]

Because, otherwise, they'd do it without Christianity. The only thing Christianity adds to the mix that atheism or secular humanism or general non-religious morality can't give them is passage into Christian heaven.

If they simply wanted to do the right thing, Christianity would be irrelevant. In order to do what you feel is right, you do not need to believe that Jesus is your savior. Christians accept Jesus as their savior because they don't want to go to hell. Pure and simple. The fact that there are some positives associated with Christianity is just sugar coating on the "do this or you will be punished/not rewarded" mantra.

There are positives to Christianity, but there are positives to simple ethics as well. The entire concept of Christianity hinges on gaining entrance into heaven.

Doing what is right is completely subjective from a material world view. Hence, when you argue that doing the right thing doesn't mean you have to be Christian, you are not stating some absolute.

Doing what is right isn't enough, it's belief that Jesus died for your sins that matters the most. You cannot live a perfect life, it is impossible. But as a believer in Christ you are to strive for perfection, which involves all the moral absolutes given in the Bible.

Nothing anyone does is good unless it is done for the Glory of God. Hence feeding starving children in Africa, or helping old ladies across the street won't save you in the end. However, there are degrees of punishment, and if you led a relatively good life, but rejected God, then you would receive a lesser punishment.

Yes, some people do accept Jesus solely because they don't want to go to hell, but that is not everyone. And secondly, if you do not grow to love Jesus then you will not do his will and will still end up in hell. Even Satan and the fallen angels believe in God, and fear him. Belief isn't enough.

Also, going to heaven isn't the final stop for a Christian. Christians will all be resurrected and reign with Christ on earth for all eternity. Which is what we were created for in the first place, until satan came along and tempted eve.

I also do not see what is wrong with "do this or you will be punished". We do this all the time on multiple levels in society. At the family level with Children, or with a wife or husband. At a societal level with the laws we put into place, and punishments for not following those laws.

God's law is based on his perfect nature. Hence he holds us to perfection. We cannot possibly hold up to his perfect law so we deserve eternal punishment.


If a Christian doesn't believe in going to hell for not following Jesus, what is the point of Jesus' sacrifice? What is the point of calling him a savior? What is the point of having a heaven and a hell if you don't have the choice as to which place you are headed?

If we do not go to hell, then the death of Jesus on the cross was meaningless and our faith is meaningless. Anyone who is a Christian believes in hell.

The entire Christian religion is based on choice. A good choice and a double-plus-ungood choice. If you choose Jesus/god/belief/obedience, you are given the positive outcome. If you choose anything else, you either don't get your reward in heaven (limbo, oblivion, etc), or you are tormented in hell for eternity.

There may be different flavors as to what you get with each choice, but the choice is still there. Believe or suffer some consequence.

Yes, there is a choice, but what is wrong about that? God's way is perfect. You are destroying perfection by not following it, and by his nature God cannot stand for anything but perfection.

Every single punishment that he meets out is just and righteous because that is his nature. Just as our nature is sinful and evil.

[hamelekim]

Like I keep saying. I find it interesting that no Christians seem to highlight this selfish decision that many of them make. Many Christians would view selfishness as a negative trait, while many of them have their religious beliefs based on a selfish decision. They like to believe that their faith will lead them away from evil human failings, but their religion includes some of those failings.

Selfishness in and of itself isn't sin. It's when selfishness leads to sinful behavior that it is wrong.

Following God to save yourself from punishment is not a bad thing, it is also not really selfish. It would be selfish if you kept the secret of salvation to yourself, but Christians are supposed to share the message of salvation to everyone.

How is that wrong?


Which would bring me to my next question that I usually ask. If god is acting like a parent with a child in that regard, why is it too late to convert after you die? While you live and breathe all sins can be forgiven and you can be saved. The moment you die, if you haven't been saved, you're too late. Or, at least according to the majority of Christians anyway.

The Bible doesn't answer that question. It is God's will that you can only be saved in this physical life. Given God's perfect nature, whatever decisions he makes are going to be righteous, and the outcome good.

That is a good point. But how does that fit in with what I brought up in the previous paragraph? Many Christians seem to believe that, if you die without accepting Jesus, your chances are all spent. If god wanted to save us and wanted obedience, why is blind faith an absolute requirement? Why do so many Christians believe that it's do or die while you are mortal?

The Bible doesn't say why, other than we have the choice. Also, I don't see how it is blind faith. Is the faith a child has in their father, that they will be taken care of, blind? Or is it based on a logical assessment, even if it is subconscious?


Where would you place heaven on that sliding scale? Geo Metro or Ferrari? Many Christians seem to think they've got a Ferrari waiting for them. Some will pretend that it's only a Geo Metro or that it might as well be one. Some will admit it's a Ferrari, but they only want it so they can give glory to the people who designed and built it when they're really more interested in driving it than they lead you to believe.


"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4)

That is the basic reward for ALL Christians. There will be positions within the government of God, which will be based on how you lived your life as a Christian, but any position will be glorious, and people will not feel as though they were cheated, or that they are jealous of someone else's reward.

We will also become perfect as God is perfect.

Is it wrong to want to be perfect as God is perfect? I would argue no. Is it wrong to want joy, peace, and love?

being selfish isn't in and of itself wrong. It's is the outcome of that selfishness that matters.

[willhaven]

Doing what is right is completely subjective from a material world view. Hence, when you argue that doing the right thing doesn't mean you have to be Christian, you are not stating some absolute.

Doing what is right isn't enough, it's belief that Jesus died for your sins that matters the most. You cannot live a perfect life, it is impossible. But as a believer in Christ you are to strive for perfection, which involves all the moral absolutes given in the Bible.

Nothing anyone does is good unless it is done for the Glory of God. Hence feeding starving children in Africa, or helping old ladies across the street won't save you in the end. However, there are degrees of punishment, and if you led a relatively good life, but rejected God, then you would receive a lesser punishment.The actions that Christians carry out in life can be made without their faith and are typically judged as positive actions even without Christianity being involved. They can do good things for themselves. They can do good things on behalf of others. When they do good things in the name of their religion, they don't do it for god, they do it for themselves. They do it because they believe their god wants them to be a good person and they typically believe that being a bad person will result in some form of punishment. If they wanted to simply help people, they wouldn't need Jesus as their savior.

Punishments and rewards are elements that reinforce what Christians do, and they drive Christians to believe and keep believing. It is inherently selfish. The irony is that religion uses this selfish tendency to promote selflessness.


Yes, some people do accept Jesus solely because they don't want to go to hell, but that is not everyone.But every Christian who believes in heaven and/or hell partly makes their decision to be a Christian based on self interest. They want to go to heaven so they decide to become a Christian or to continue being a Christian.

Some accept Jesus solely to save themselves. All accept Jesus at least partly because of self interest. They want something for themselves.

Christianity offers incentives for its followers. If you are a follower and are aware of those incentives, you have made a choice based on self interest. You may also enjoy helping old ladies across the street, but you also want to go to heaven.


I also do not see what is wrong with "do this or you will be punished". We do this all the time on multiple levels in society. At the family level with Children, or with a wife or husband. At a societal level with the laws we put into place, and punishments for not following those laws.Nothing is wrong with it. As stated a couple of replies above, I just find it interesting how many Christians either don't realize or wouldn't admit that their decision to follow Jesus is partly a selfish one.


God's law is based on his perfect nature. Hence he holds us to perfection. We cannot possibly hold up to his perfect law so we deserve eternal punishment. I always find this interesting. God cannot create something that is perfect, so his creation is to blame.


If we do not go to hell, then the death of Jesus on the cross was meaningless and our faith is meaningless. Anyone who is a Christian believes in hell.So, if Eve were never tempted by Satan, would faith in god be meaningless? Without the ability for us to go to hell, how does that make faith meaningless?


Yes, there is a choice, but what is wrong about that? God's way is perfect. You are destroying perfection by not following it, and by his nature God cannot stand for anything but perfection.

Every single punishment that he meets out is just and righteous because that is his nature. Just as our nature is sinful and evil.Having a choice isn't the issue. Making the choice primarily for yourself and then attributing your choice to glorify god is the issue.

Read my bit above about reversing heaven and hell. If a god fearing Christian does good things and ends up in hell as a result, the religion wouldn't be very appealing, would it? Because of heaven and hell, there is inherently some self interest involved in making the choice to become a Christian.


Selfishness in and of itself isn't sin. It's when selfishness leads to sinful behavior that it is wrong.

Following God to save yourself from punishment is not a bad thing, it is also not really selfish. It would be selfish if you kept the secret of salvation to yourself, but Christians are supposed to share the message of salvation to everyone.

How is that wrong?I never said selfishness is wrong. I said it's human nature and that many Christians seem to like to avoid or downplay how much self interest is involved in their salvation. If they had to list the top 5 reasons they are a Christian, would "so I can go to heaven" top the list?

And again. Reverse heaven and hell for a Christian. Would they choose or continue to believe if they knew that following Jesus would send them to hell?


The Bible doesn't answer that question. It is God's will that you can only be saved in this physical life. Given God's perfect nature, whatever decisions he makes are going to be righteous, and the outcome good.These two sentences don't jibe. Either the bible says you can only be saved in this life or it doesn't. Any thing else is projection and speculation.


The Bible doesn't say why, other than we have the choice. Also, I don't see how it is blind faith. Is the faith a child has in their father, that they will be taken care of, blind? Or is it based on a logical assessment, even if it is subconscious? If you've never physically seen or spoken to god, it is blind faith. A child can see his father and approach him in a conversation. A Christian can only infer that god is speaking to them through their subconscious which is inherently fallible.


"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4)

That is the basic reward for ALL Christians. There will be positions within the government of God, which will be based on how you lived your life as a Christian, but any position will be glorious, and people will not feel as though they were cheated, or that they are jealous of someone else's reward.

We will also become perfect as God is perfect.

Is it wrong to want to be perfect as God is perfect? I would argue no. Is it wrong to want joy, peace, and love?

being selfish isn't in and of itself wrong. It's is the outcome of that selfishness that matters.I agree, but I find it strange that Christians appear to like to downplay the importance of this selfish decision they have made in order to save themselves.

Swap heaven for hell and you'll find that all of the other positives of living a Christian life pale in comparison to simply rewarded.

[bruto]

If Hamelkim's argument is the best that faith can come up with, I may have to concede (albeit reluctantly and grudgingly) to willhaven. I don't really think it is, but it's hardly up to those of us who have no faith to defend it, so I will step over to a neutral corner and let you duke it out.

[Maia]

Okay, as SOON as I finish John Shelby Spong's new book, Eternal Life: A New Vision: Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell, I will have to post a summary of it. :) (He's the one who's always villified on websites like Rapture Ready... the one who's described in terms such as "the atheist bishop")... I'm halfway through the book and I still don't see how he can possibly get to Chapter 17, "I Believe In Life Beyond Death." So far, he's rejected theism, the paranormal, NDE's, OBE's, John Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, heaven, hell, reward, punishment, God, the Devil, intelligent design, all religious thinking, and basic theology, and he's talked a lot about Darwin and how much he likes Richard Dawkins. This is REALLY going to be interesting.

[Kahalachan]

Ask a devout Christian why they exist and what their goal in life is, and they will tell you "to go to Heaven".

So what they do in this world, the only life they are guarunteed of having, is irrelevant and worthless?

The only point of living in this world, is to make it to the make believe, un-proven, and possibly BS next one?

And if these Christians are convinced that the next life is a fake, they have no reason to live??

Wow. How sad. How pathetic. One should not need the possibility of another life to come, to justify living a good life in the one they KNOW they have.
This is too flippant. A lot of Christians (having been one and associated with many) live for god and Jesus to show their love for them. It would be similar to living for your dad or mom. They gave you life so you make them proud.

[willhaven]

This is too flippant. A lot of Christians (having been one and associated with many) live for god and Jesus to show their love for them. It would be similar to living for your dad or mom. They gave you life so you make them proud.No one lives for their parents. They may coincidentally live the ideals that their parents held.

Again, reverse heaven and hell and see how many Christians continue to follow their religion to give glory to god.

It's obvious which aspects are the most important. A Christian wants to go to heaven. If going to heaven happens to coincide with doing good things and following god, it is convenient for them. They do good things AND they get a reward for it.

If a Christian who did good things their entire life and were sent to hell as a result, would they still do good things and try to glorify good for the sheer joy of it? Absolutely not. Conversely, if a Christian disobeyed god, murdered people and generally lived a life filled with sin in order to go to heaven, they'd do that.

[Piscivore]

No one lives for their parents. They may coincidentally live the ideals that their parents held.
You're still assuming you know what other people's motives are. Do you have any evidence to back that up? Because I'm pretty sure the literature of psychology is going to have a case or two of people completely dominated by their parents.

It's obvious which aspects are the most important. A Christian wants to go to heaven.
Despite the fact that not all Christians believe in heaven?

If going to heaven happens to coincide with doing good things and following god, it is convenient for them. They do good things AND they get a reward for it.
Youu have consistently failed to explain why this is a problem, or even worth mentioning.

Conversely, if a Christian disobeyed god, murdered people and generally lived a life filled with sin in order to go to heaven, they'd do that.
You're not that familiar with some of the medieval popes, are you?

[Kahalachan]

No one lives for their parents. They may coincidentally live the ideals that their parents held.

Again, reverse heaven and hell and see how many Christians continue to follow their religion to give glory to god.

It's obvious which aspects are the most important. A Christian wants to go to heaven. If going to heaven happens to coincide with doing good things and following god, it is convenient for them. They do good things AND they get a reward for it.

If a Christian who did good things their entire life and were sent to hell as a result, would they still do good things and try to glorify good for the sheer joy of it? Absolutely not. Conversely, if a Christian disobeyed god, murdered people and generally lived a life filled with sin in order to go to heaven, they'd do that.

We almost don't have to say reverse heaven and hell. We can see the Christian doctrine teaches that people you love will burn in hell if they don't share your faith.

So a Christian mother whose son turned atheist has to deal with their son being tortured for an eternity. So no matter how good they are as a Christian, people they love will be tormented forever.

And they still worship god. They see god > family (which I admit is a scary thought) similarly along the lines as to how we may prioritize our family with the family dog. If they see god > family, I'm pretty sure they would also think god > myself and find some way to justify god sending them to hell.


I don't see how Christians would be the only ones affected by reversing rewards and punishments. If helping an old lady with her groceries lands you a lifetime prison sentence, how many of us would do that?

So I still disagree with the OP about Christians having a pathetic reason for their existence. I would simply call it misplaced.

[Monster Machine]

That is the basic reward for ALL Christians. There will be positions within the government of God, which will be based on how you lived your life as a Christian, but any position will be glorious, and people will not feel as though they were cheated, or that they are jealous of someone else's reward.





So, this is the reward for all. A position in god's government. No on will be jealous, no one will care, because hey - even the janitor is happy to have a job.

I find this quite a stretch coming from even you, hamelekim. If everything is so perfect, why did Lucifer get his underwear in a knot and rebel? According to you (and only you - you never did prove the Paradise Lost story was actually in the bible) a third of the angels were tossed out along with him.

So - either you CAN fall from heaven (according to you, this is possible given what happened with the angels) or we are wiped of who we are and are merely automatons for god's pleasure. That is what you hope for?

Monster

[sugarb]

It seems to me that for the more fundy Christians, their reasons for doing good deeds, donating to charities, being kind to their neighbors, are for very very selfish reasons.

Most fundy Christians only strive to live a moral life so that they can go to heaven. The logical conclusion to that is that if they no longer believed in heaven, they would feel no obligation or personal justification to do nice things, and would go around raping, murdering, and stealing.

See, I am an agnostic. But I surely don't believe in Heaven. But yet, I strive to be as good a person as I can be.

Why do I do this..knowing there is not some perpetual spiritual reward waiting for me?

Cause its the right thing to do, and I would want to be treated the same way. I don't need a reward to be a nice person and a kind human being. Seeing a smile on the face of a child is enough reward for me. Even without a smile, knowing that I did a good thing that helped someone, is all the reward I need.

As opposed to fundy Christians, who only do good things so they can go to Heaven. Selfish, self-surving bastards.


I'm a believer, but my goal in life isn't to go to Heaven. I don't know if I'm good enough for that or not. Or if it is even real. I don't consider Heaven to be pearly gates, mansions, and streets of gold. To me, Heaven is a field of dogs, no anger, no discrimination, no fear, perpetual fishing and beer...if it ends up being mansions and gold I'll be pissed.

I prefer, really, to consider myself a Christian in the works, because...I dunno...I just don't think we can ever achieve perfection, and I don't think "absolute forgiveness" means it is okay to do whatever we want. I think my job here is to learn as much as I can and do as much as I can for others. I don't think that makes me very different from non-believers. And I'll be the first to admit that many non-believers espouse the values of Christ a helluva lot better than many professed Christians.

Anyway, it has been my observation that "fundy christians" aren't really very moral people. They also tend to break the very commandments they're supposed to be living by. Um...they also tend to be vain (as in glory seeking). I think if they have to have their own label...well...that kind of defeats the whole point, eh? But then again, I'm not in their minds, so I can't really say what their intentions are. It does confuse me, though.

[kdogg]

some people think hedonism is also a sad purpose to life

(not me tho)

I do agree that not treasuring life while you've got it is sad, but that's cos I don't believe in the afterlife; if I did then obv eternity is more important

[willhaven]

You're still assuming you know what other people's motives are. Do you have any evidence to back that up? Because I'm pretty sure the literature of psychology is going to have a case or two of people completely dominated by their parents.In some cases yes. But generally people do things for themselves. Even in the cases where children follow their parent's whims to their own detriment, they do it for themselves. Either because they believe their parents are right or because the person in question is avoiding conflict. Generally people live their lives for themselves and not for their parents.

Again. I'm speaking generally. There are probably instances where people have no sense of self due to mental illness or are coerced into doing something because of family dysfunction. In most instances, people live for themselves and not their parents. Unless, of course, their ideals and the ideals of their parents happen to overlap. It's easy to say you're living for your parents or living for god if the things you do in their name happen to be things you would do in their absence.


Despite the fact that not all Christians believe in heaven?Do I really have to spell it out every single time? In general, a Christian wants to go to heaven because, in general, Christians believe in both heaven and hell. In general of course. ;)


Youu have consistently failed to explain why this is a problem, or even worth mentioning.I have explained it consistently. Many times. Christians who believe in heaven generally seem to not view their choice as a selfish one, even though it is by definition.


You're not that familiar with some of the medieval popes, are you?Not off the top of my head, no. In what regard?

[willhaven]

We almost don't have to say reverse heaven and hell. We can see the Christian doctrine teaches that people you love will burn in hell if they don't share your faith.

So a Christian mother whose son turned atheist has to deal with their son being tortured for an eternity. So no matter how good they are as a Christian, people they love will be tormented forever.

And they still worship god. They see god > family (which I admit is a scary thought) similarly along the lines as to how we may prioritize our family with the family dog. If they see god > family, I'm pretty sure they would also think god > myself and find some way to justify god sending them to hell.No, in the instance where a mother believes in god even though her atheist son is going to hell... the mother > family. She still believes for herself. Not for god. Not for her son. She continues to believe in god so she can be saved.

If you invert heaven and hell. You live a life for god (good works) and sacrifice your soul to hell. That would be living for god because the things you do for god would be done even at your own detriment.

In the classic Christian scenario of following god to go to heaven. You live for yourself but coincidentally happen to do what god wants you to do. Partially because you simply want to go to heaven.


I don't see how Christians would be the only ones affected by reversing rewards and punishments. If helping an old lady with her groceries lands you a lifetime prison sentence, how many of us would do that?Exactly. And if you knew doing good works would send you to hell, you wouldn't do good works.

If you knew that every time you helped your neighbor with their groceries $1,000 would be deposited in your bank account, you'd become an incredibly helpful neighbor. If $1,000 was removed, you'd never help. If there was no change, you may help and you may not.


So I still disagree with the OP about Christians having a pathetic reason for their existence. I would simply call it misplaced.I wouldn't say it's pathetic. I would just call it selfish. Human nature.

[kurious_kathy]

Actually, yes, I do understand this concept. But it isn't the same concept as:


The first is a spiritual concept. The second is a fruitless attempt to pretend that the symbolic language early Christians used to understand the importance which Jesus held for them has any literal meaning. Jesus didn't die for our sins; he died because the Romans hated what he was doing and the message he was spreading.

Well then how do you explain Jesus saying nobody takes his life from him? He said he willing laid down his life for us.

Jesus was the only who never sinned because he is God's son and had the strength not to. All of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, this is why Jesus redeemed us through the power of the cross and his blood sacrificed for everyone. I strongly suggest you receive him as your Lord and Savior before it's too late, you just do not know what you are missing outside of Christ! He will open your eyes to the truth of scripture if you receive him and ask him to!

[hamelekim]

I'm a believer, but my goal in life isn't to go to Heaven. I don't know if I'm good enough for that or not. Or if it is even real. I don't consider Heaven to be pearly gates, mansions, and streets of gold. To me, Heaven is a field of dogs, no anger, no discrimination, no fear, perpetual fishing and beer...if it ends up being mansions and gold I'll be pissed.

I prefer, really, to consider myself a Christian in the works, because...I dunno...I just don't think we can ever achieve perfection, and I don't think "absolute forgiveness" means it is okay to do whatever we want. I think my job here is to learn as much as I can and do as much as I can for others. I don't think that makes me very different from non-believers. And I'll be the first to admit that many non-believers espouse the values of Christ a helluva lot better than many professed Christians.

Anyway, it has been my observation that "fundy christians" aren't really very moral people. They also tend to break the very commandments they're supposed to be living by. Um...they also tend to be vain (as in glory seeking). I think if they have to have their own label...well...that kind of defeats the whole point, eh? But then again, I'm not in their minds, so I can't really say what their intentions are. It does confuse me, though.

No one is a moral person, that is the whole point. It is impossible for us to follow the 116 laws in the OT. The law is there to show us that we can never meet God's standard, hence the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

We aren't supposed to live a perfect life, because that is impossible. But we are supposed to strive every single day to try and live a perfect life, and God will change our hearts to make us more like Jesus.

The Goal isn't heaven, the goal is eternal life. Heaven is only an intermediate step from this life to our resurrection bodies, on this earth.

There might be many people who are non believers who live better lives than believers, but it isn't what you do that matters, as that cannot save you, but what you believe.

If you do not follow the letter of the law, every single law, then you are not perfect, and without being perfect you cannot enter heaven. The death of Jesus on the cross covers a Christians sin, so that we are not judged for that sin, but how we lived as Christians. What we did with the gifts we have.

There many be a lot of problems in the Church today, but they are at least trying, which is exactly what God wants.

Take a look at David. He was a man after God, yet he slept with a married woman and had her husband killed. He was a sinner through and through, and yet he was eventually redeemed by God.

[Piscivore]

In some cases yes. But generally people do things for themselves. Even in the cases where children follow their parent's whims to their own detriment, they do it for themselves. Either because they believe their parents are right or because the person in question is avoiding conflict. Generally people live their lives for themselves and not for their parents.

Again. I'm speaking generally. There are probably instances where people have no sense of self due to mental illness or are coerced into doing something because of family dysfunction. In most instances, people live for themselves and not their parents. Unless, of course, their ideals and the ideals of their parents happen to overlap. It's easy to say you're living for your parents or living for god if the things you do in their name happen to be things you would do in their absence.


Do I really have to spell it out every single time? In general, a Christian wants to go to heaven because, in general, Christians believe in both heaven and hell. In general of course. ;)
We've already concluded that "in general" means "wrong", so why do you keep repeating erroneous information like it means something?

I have explained it consistently. Many times. Christians who believe in heaven generally seem to not view their choice as a selfish one, even though it is by definition.
That's just restating the situation. Why do you care how a Christain "views their choice"?

Not off the top of my head, no. In what regard?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes

[Whiplash]

I find the idea that many if not all Christians would only do "good things" out of desire for eternal reward to be ... interesting.

Every religious person I knew growing up was a genuine good person in every way that I could tell. To their core. They empathized with others. They enjoyed helping people.

[sphenisc]

I have explained it consistently. Many times. Christians who believe in heaven generally seem to not view their choice as a selfish one, even though it is by definition.


You haven't provided a definition. Never mind provide evidence that Christians' motivations are consistent with that definition.

[hamelekim]

I find the idea that many if not all Christians would only do "good things" out of desire for eternal reward to be ... interesting.

Every religious person I knew growing up was a genuine good person in every way that I could tell. To their core. They empathized with others. They enjoyed helping people.
Well, the basic idea in Christianity is that when you are saved you have the Holy Spirit enter you. At that point it is a process of you being conformed to the image of Jesus.

This means you will grow to love others, truly love them, and become more Christ like. So at that point it becomes more than just doing good because you are asked to do it. You want to do good because your nature changes.

[Foster Zygote]

I find the idea that many if not all Christians would only do "good things" out of desire for eternal reward to be ... interesting.

Every religious person I knew growing up was a genuine good person in every way that I could tell. To their core. They empathized with others. They enjoyed helping people.

Quite right. I find the notion that believers only do good out of fear of supernatural punishment or desire for reward to be just as misguided as the notion that atheists are amoral because they don't fear supernatural punishment.

[Foster Zygote]

Well, the basic idea in Christianity is that when you are saved you have the Holy Spirit enter you. At that point it is a process of you being conformed to the image of Jesus.

This means you will grow to love others, truly love them, and become more Christ like. So at that point it becomes more than just doing good because you are asked to do it. You want to do good because your nature changes.

Which implies that only Christians feel this sort of love for others. This is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

[Maia]

Well then how do you explain Jesus saying nobody takes his life from him? He said he willing laid down his life for us.



I do understand that this really isn't going to go anywhere... however, Jesus didn't actually say any such thing; I go with Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar, as well as John Shelby Spong, who all conclude that Jesus may have made about 20% of the statements ascribed to him,and that the above were not in them.


Okay, let's look at it like this. Here's the website for The Church of God With Signs Following (http://www.freewebs.com/holiness-snake-handlers/), aka Holiness Snake Handlers Apostolic Movement. Their particular branch of the Pentecostal Church is based on a literal interpretation of Mark 16:17-18. "17: And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18: they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

They believe that Christians who don't handle serpents and drink poison are going to hell. Do you follow a literal interpretation of Mark 16:17-18? If not, then why not? It's in the Bible, just as much as

John 10:11, 15, 17, 18
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


I guess I will have to provide the Bible verses for this, since you did not!


Because both passages are in the Bible, we should clearly all be out there picking up snakes and drinking arsenic, which is exactly what people from the Church of God With Signs Following are doing. You can go first, though... ;)

[Foster Zygote]

I do understand that this really isn't going to go anywhere... however, Jesus didn't actually say any such thing; I go with Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar, as well as John Shelby Spong, who all conclude that Jesus may have made about 20% of the statements ascribed to him,and that the above were not in them.


Okay, let's look at it like this. Here's the website for The Church of God With Signs Following (http://www.freewebs.com/holiness-snake-handlers/), aka Holiness Snake Handlers Apostolic Movement. Their particular branch of the Pentecostal Church is based on a literal interpretation of Mark 16:17-18. "17: And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18: they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

They believe that Christians who don't handle serpents and drink poison are going to hell. Do you follow a literal interpretation of Mark 16:17-18? If not, then why not? It's in the Bible, just as much as

John 10:11, 15, 17, 18
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.


I guess I will have to provide the Bible verses for this, since you did not!


Because both passages are in the Bible, we should clearly all be out there picking up snakes and drinking arsenic, which is exactly what people from the Church of God With Signs Following are doing. You can go first, though... ;)

Ironically, the last twelve verses of Mark were added much later. The earliest copies of Mark do not contain them.

[willhaven]

We've already concluded that "in general" means "wrong", so why do you keep repeating erroneous information like it means something?"In general" does not mean "wrong." "In general" means that things tend to be correct. There are many generalizations you and I use every day that tend to be correct.

My belief that Christians who believe in heaven/and or hell generally do so for primarily selfish reasons seems to be true. It's reflected by their choice to become a Christian or to continue to stay a Christian. If they believe in heaven or hell, whatever decision that drives them to Christianity or keeps them believing Christianity is partly driven by self interest.

There is an incentive for them to follow Christianity. If they believe those incentives to be true and they follow Christianity, what can we conclude? I conclude that those incentives have had an impact on their decision. They saw a benefit in belief and made a choice based on self interest. A selfish decision.


That's just restating the situation. Why do you care how a Christain "views their choice"?To re-re-re-re-re-reiterate. I don't care except when pointing it out in discussions such as these. I think it's an interesting phenomenon that many Christians seem to share.
Like I keep saying. I find it interesting that no Christians seem to highlight this selfish decision that many of them make. Many Christians would view selfishness as a negative trait, while many of them have their religious beliefs based on a selfish decision. They like to believe that their faith will lead them away from evil human failings, but their religion includes some of those failings.
...
I've brought up my point before. I find it interesting and hypocritical that many Christians who make selfish choices in the selection of religious belief would likely deny it as being a selfish act. At the best, they'd probably downplay that role.
...
Because they would often deny having any selfish tendencies in regards to their religion.
...
Because I think those who believe in some benefit for their faith should be able to accept that they make a selfish choice.
...
Because many view that kind of selfish behavior as a negative trait when, in reality, their very own view of that religion hinges on making a selfish choice for themselves.

[willhaven]

You haven't provided a definition. Never mind provide evidence that Christians' motivations are consistent with that definition.There is plenty of evidence. How many Christians believe that their religion is a net positive for them? How many Christians believe that their religion is a net negative for them, or that it will be detrimental for them?

Every person generally makes choices for themselves that are beneficial. People tend to make selfish decisions for their own good. A Christian choosing to believe in that religion also make a selfish decision.

What they believe may drive them to make a different choice than an atheist would, but the decision is no less selfish. It's no less selfish than someone stealing a loaf of bread from a store.

[Piscivore]

"In general" does not mean "wrong." "In general" means that things tend to be correct. There are many generalizations you and I use every day that tend to be correct.
Name one.

My belief that Christians who believe in heaven/and or hell generally do so for primarily selfish reasons seems to be true.
To you, yes. It is as unsupported a belief as those of the Christians. You have not produced a shred of evidence to support it and have instead resorted to a bunch of assumptions you have yourself admitted are useless when considering specific cases.

To re-re-re-re-re-reiterate. I don't care except when pointing it out in discussions such as these. I think it's an interesting phenomenon that many Christians seem to share.
It is a completely pedestrian and very common "phenomenon" that all humans seem to share. Why do you choose to highlight it only when Christians seem to display it?

[joobz]

Jesus was the only who never sinned because he is God's son and had the strength not to.
Of course, when you get to set what is/isn't a sin, the deck is stacked in your favor.

All of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, this is why Jesus redeemed us through the power of the cross and his blood sacrificed for everyone.
nope.

I strongly suggest you receive him as your Lord and Savior before it's too late, you just do not know what you are missing outside of Christ! He will open your eyes to the truth of scripture if you receive him and ask him to!
You advocate a world view that is nothing but doom and gloom. You have pratically celebrated the california forest fires as though they were god's judgement reigned down upon the evil Hollywood. And yet, here you are trying to convince others that we don't know what we are missing? You only wish to spread your message of hate and fear.
I reject your world view.

[Pure_Argent]

Well then how do you explain Jesus saying nobody takes his life from him?

I doubt that he actually ever said that. If he did, then he was crazy.
KK, you're forgetting the key point here; most of the members of this forum don't believe that Jesus was the son of god. The Bible is a collection of fantasy stories, with entire huge sections either tacked on or edited to make it appear as though Jesus really was divine.

He said he willing laid down his life for us.

See above.
But actually, he could have said that. He could have been willing to lay down his life to establish a new religion.

Jesus was the only who never sinned because he is God's son and had the strength not to. All of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, this is why Jesus redeemed us through the power of the cross and his blood sacrificed for everyone. I strongly suggest you receive him as your Lord and Savior before it's too late, you just do not know what you are missing outside of Christ! He will open your eyes to the truth of scripture if you receive him and ask him to!

Shut up with the preaching already. You must present evidence to support your faith. Otherwise you're not going to change anyone's mind.

No one is a moral person, that is the whole point. It is impossible for us to follow the 116 laws in the OT. The law is there to show us that we can never meet God's standard, hence the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

So it goes something like this:

- God creates sin
- God makes it so that it's impossible to not sin
- God tells you that he doesn't approve of sin, so any sinners won't get to go into heaven
- God gives you a cure for sin that, for some unknown reason, just happens to entail that you bow down to god and worship him mindlessly forever

Yeah, that's definitely the sign of a being worthy of worship there.

We aren't supposed to live a perfect life, because that is impossible. But we are supposed to strive every single day to try and live a perfect life, and God will change our hearts to make us more like Jesus.

Useless preaching, ignored as it has no evidence.

The Goal isn't heaven, the goal is eternal life. Heaven is only an intermediate step from this life to our resurrection bodies, on this earth.

Bare assertion.

There might be many people who are non believers who live better lives than believers, but it isn't what you do that matters, as that cannot save you, but what you believe.

Bare assertion.

If you do not follow the letter of the law, every single law, then you are not perfect, and without being perfect you cannot enter heaven.

This assumes that the law is perfect. Many of the laws in the OT are simply sadistic. They're not perfect.

The death of Jesus on the cross covers a Christians sin, so that we are not judged for that sin, but how we lived as Christians. What we did with the gifts we have.

Bare assertion.

There many be a lot of problems in the Church today, but they are at least trying, which is exactly what God wants.

No, god wants you to lead a sinless life.

Take a look at David. He was a man after God, yet he slept with a married woman and had her husband killed. He was a sinner through and through, and yet he was eventually redeemed by God.

One reason I don't like the Biblical concept of sin.

Well, the basic idea in Christianity is that when you are saved you have the Holy Spirit enter you. At that point it is a process of you being conformed to the image of Jesus.

This would be all right IF THERE WAS A SINGLE DOCUMENTED CASE OF THIS HAPPENING - a person actually, observably, being entered by the holy spirit and becoming like Christ.

This means you will grow to love others, truly love them, and become more Christ like. So at that point it becomes more than just doing good because you are asked to do it. You want to do good because your nature changes.

See above.

[kurious_kathy]

I doubt that he actually ever said that. If he did, then he was crazy.
KK, you're forgetting the key point here; most of the members of this forum don't believe that Jesus was the son of god. The Bible is a collection of fantasy stories, with entire huge sections either tacked on or edited to make it appear as though Jesus really was divine.



See above.
But actually, he could have said that. He could have been willing to lay down his life to establish a new religion.



Shut up with the preaching already. You must present evidence to support your faith. Otherwise you're not going to change anyone's mind.



So it goes something like this:

- God creates sin
- God makes it so that it's impossible to not sin
- God tells you that he doesn't approve of sin, so any sinners won't get to go into heaven
- God gives you a cure for sin that, for some unknown reason, just happens to entail that you bow down to god and worship him mindlessly forever

Yeah, that's definitely the sign of a being worthy of worship there.



Useless preaching, ignored as it has no evidence.



Bare assertion.



Bare assertion.



This assumes that the law is perfect. Many of the laws in the OT are simply sadistic. They're not perfect.



Bare assertion.



No, god wants you to lead a sinless life.



One reason I don't like the Biblical concept of sin.



This would be all right IF THERE WAS A SINGLE DOCUMENTED CASE OF THIS HAPPENING - a person actually, observably, being entered by the holy spirit and becoming like Christ.



See above.

Hey Pure Agent I can't help it if you take it as I'm preaching, the truth is still the truth and only Jesus can open anyones eyes to it!

At this point I would just like to refer you to some great lyrics by Nichole Nordeman here as my reply because I couldn't say it any better than she does in this song. In fact if I can find a link to her myspace or song I will add the link because I think you all should here it. Here you go... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ScWCfNPpI

What if you're right?
And he was just another nice guy
What if you're right?
What if it's true?
They say the cross will only make a fool of you
And what if it's true?

What if he takes his place in history
With all the prophets and the kings
Who taught us love and came in peace
But then the story ends
What then?

But what if you're wrong?
What if there's more?
What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?
What if you jump?
And just close your eyes?
What if the arms that catch you, catch you by surprise?
What if He's more than enough?
What if it's love?

What if you dig
Way down deeper than your simple-minded friends
What if you dig?
What if you find
A thousand more unanswered questions down inside
That's all you find?

What if you pick apart the logic
And begin to poke the holes
What if the crown of thorns is no more
Than folklore that must be told and retold?

You've been running as fast as you can
You've been looking for a place you can land for so long
But what if you?re wrong?

[Pure_Argent]

Hey Pure Agent

Pure_Argent. ARGENT. Notice the "r". Means "silver".

I can't help it if you take it as I'm preaching, the truth is still the truth and only Jesus can open anyones eyes to it!

Preaching. Ignored

At this point I would just like to refer you to some great lyrics by Nichole Nordeman here as my reply because I couldn't say it any better than she does in this song. In fact if I can find a link to her myspace or song I will add the link because I think you all should here it. Here you go... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ScWCfNPpI

KK, do you ever say anything original? Do you ever have any religious thoughts that have not been put into your head by other people?

<snip preach-singing>

Translation: "Okay, all the evidence is against my beliefs - but evidence doesn't matter! You're wrong anyway!"

:/

That doesn't work. Sorry.

[joobz]

Hey Pure Agent I can't help it if you take it as I'm preaching, the truth is still the truth and only Jesus can open anyones eyes to it!

Hey, KK, what if YOU are wrong and the scientologists are right?

[Foster Zygote]

But what if you're wrong?
What if there's more?
What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?
What if you jump?
And just close your eyes?
What if the arms that catch you, catch you by surprise?
What if He's more than enough?
What if it's love?
I find it ironic that those who employ the "what if you're wrong" tactic are very often unwilling to entertain the thought themselves. What if you're wrong, Kathy?

What if you dig
Way down deeper than your simple-minded friends
What if you dig?
What if you find
A thousand more unanswered questions down inside
That's all you find?
Actually, that's exactly what I expect. Every answer we manage to chip out of the universe leads us to more questions. I don't know why the author of these lyrics seems to think this is such a fearful and desperate prospect. I find it wondrous. I'm perfectly at ease with a universe that is a vast mystery that will always present new challenges and new wonders.

What if you pick apart the logic
And begin to poke the holes
What if the crown of thorns is no more
Than folklore that must be told and retold?
What indeed? What if the Jesus narrative is largely fictional, a reflection of the hopes and fears, values and beliefs of very human storytellers? What if the Jesus narrative is no more real than the stories about the gods of the Norse, Egyptians, Babylonians etcetera?

You've been running as fast as you can
You've been looking for a place you can land for so long
But what if you're wrong?
Ah yes, the all too familiar assumption that those who don't share your beliefs must be unable to find happiness. Predictably, many people of other religious faiths assume the same thing about Christians.

[kurious_kathy]

Hey, KK, what if YOU are wrong and the scientologists are right?

joobz, I never claimed to be a genius, but I know one thing for sure, "Who Jesus Is!" He is the only way to the father and the sooner you get that right the better!!

[Marduk]

joobz, I never claimed to be a genius, but I know one thing for sure, "Who Jesus Is!" He is the only way to the father and the sooner you get that right the better!!

so how do I get to the sister
:D

[Maia]

Ironically, the last twelve verses of Mark were added much later. The earliest copies of Mark do not contain them.

Somehow, I don't think we're going to get very far by pointing this out to either KK or the snake-handling church. Anyway...


joobz, I never claimed to be a genius, but I know one thing for sure, "Who Jesus Is!" He is the only way to the father and the sooner you get that right the better!!


KK, are you talking about:

John 14:6 (New International Version)

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

(Why do I have to be the one who keeps correctly quoting these Bible verses???)

Let's see what retired Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong has to say:

John Shelby Spong on the Terrible Texts of the Bible

RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY:
"No one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6)

Adapted from: The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Discover the God of Love



This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another. A veritable renaissance of religious terror now confronts us and is making against us the claims we have long made against religious traditions different from our own.

[Piscivore]

so how do I get to the sister
:D

Climb the trellis thirty minutes after the porch light goes out, and gently rap thrice on the rear window on the west side of the house. Tell her you heard about the apples.

[Cleon]

Hey Pure Agent I can't help it if you take it as I'm preaching, the truth is still the truth and only Jesus can open anyones eyes to it!

At this point I would just like to refer you to some great lyrics by Nichole Nordeman here as my reply because I couldn't say it any better than she does in this song. In fact if I can find a link to her myspace or song I will add the link because I think you all should here it. Here you go... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ScWCfNPpI

Sure, kathy. I've heard Christian music before. Much of it is crap, but there's some good stuff out there, too.

In return, I'd like you to listen to this song, and explain what you think of the philosophy contained therein:

b8DtpdXZi0M

[Hokulele]

joobz, I never claimed to be a genius, but I know one thing for sure, "Who Jesus Is!" He is the only way to the father and the sooner you get that right the better!!


And what if you are wrong?

[joobz]

joobz, I never claimed to be a genius, but I know one thing for sure, "Who Jesus Is!" He is the only way to the father and the sooner you get that right the better!!
I never claimed you (or I) were geniuses either.
You ignored my question.
What if you are wrong?

[Elizabeth I]

Do you understand this concept?

Would you try to understand this concept, please?

Many people on this board understand your concepts. Many of them know the Bible and the ins and outs of Christianity better than you do. Some of them have written books on the subject. Some of them have lived it and been abused by those who were supposed to be their spiritual leaders.

They understand your concept and, with that understanding, have chosen not to accept it. You do not need to keep repeating your preachy posts. They have heard it all before, and they reject it.

Well then how do you explain Jesus saying nobody takes his life from him? He said he willing laid down his life for us.

Jesus was the only who never sinned because he is God's son and had the strength not to. All of us have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, this is why Jesus redeemed us through the power of the cross and his blood sacrificed for everyone. I strongly suggest you receive him as your Lord and Savior before it's too late, you just do not know what you are missing outside of Christ! He will open your eyes to the truth of scripture if you receive him and ask him to!

:rolleyes:

[willhaven]

Name one.It doesn't generally snow in Fresno, CA.

People who obtain college degrees tend to make more money than those without them.

Most Christians believe in a heaven or a hell.

People generally make choices in their life that benefit them directly.

Most Christians who believe in a heaven or hell make the choice that benefits them.


To you, yes. It is as unsupported a belief as those of the Christians. You have not produced a shred of evidence to support it and have instead resorted to a bunch of assumptions you have yourself admitted are useless when considering specific cases.It depends how thinly you want to slice it. When speaking in generalities, people primarily do things for themselves and make decisions that benefit themselves. Why would a Christian be any different?


It is a completely pedestrian and very common "phenomenon" that all humans seem to share. Why do you choose to highlight it only when Christians seem to display it?Because this thread is discussing Christianity and their motivations. I find it interesting that many would deny or downplay their selfish motivations. Or that they would try to re-frame them in another way (living for god, etc).

[Piscivore]

It doesn't generally snow in Fresno, CA.
From only that can you conclude anything at all if someone says it is snowing in Fresno?

People who obtain college degrees tend to make more money than those without them.
From just that can you accurately determine anything at all about how much Bob makes?

Most Christians believe in a heaven or a hell.
From just that can you accurately predict what the actual beliefs are of any random Christian?

People generally make choices in their life that benefit them directly.
From that can you exclude the posibility that people may be mistaken about what will actually benefit them?

It depends how thinly you want to slice it.
To the individual Christian.

When speaking in generalities, people primarily do things for themselves and make decisions that benefit themselves. Why would a Christian be any different?
That's my point. Why even mention it?

Because this thread is discussing Christianity and their motivations.
And it has been rightly pointed out many times that their "motivations" are meaningless. The only possible reason to care about someone else's motivations instead of their actions is a desire to make them think the way one wishes them to think.

I find it interesting that many would deny or downplay their selfish motivations.
Which you simply assume they do without offering any evidence beyond your own assertion that they do. That they may not mention their motivations may simply mean that they don't feel they need to explain their motivations any and every time they act- which is again, a common human behviour, not a exclusively "Christian" one, and thus does not even warrant mention.

Or that they would try to re-frame them in another way (living for god, etc).
Which you assume is true, completely ignoring the possiblity that these are the genuine motivations, or what the actor percieves as the more signifigant of potentially several concurrent motivations.

[sugarb]

No one is a moral person, that is the whole point. It is impossible for us to follow the 116 laws in the OT. The law is there to show us that we can never meet God's standard, hence the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

We aren't supposed to live a perfect life, because that is impossible. But we are supposed to strive every single day to try and live a perfect life, and God will change our hearts to make us more like Jesus.

The Goal isn't heaven, the goal is eternal life. Heaven is only an intermediate step from this life to our resurrection bodies, on this earth.

There might be many people who are non believers who live better lives than believers, but it isn't what you do that matters, as that cannot save you, but what you believe.

If you do not follow the letter of the law, every single law, then you are not perfect, and without being perfect you cannot enter heaven. The death of Jesus on the cross covers a Christians sin, so that we are not judged for that sin, but how we lived as Christians. What we did with the gifts we have.

There many be a lot of problems in the Church today, but they are at least trying, which is exactly what God wants.

Take a look at David. He was a man after God, yet he slept with a married woman and had her husband killed. He was a sinner through and through, and yet he was eventually redeemed by God.

Hello, Hamelekim. Yeah, but you know what? If non-believers are living better lives than believers, they surely aren't doing it because they think they should, or they feel like they have to. They are doing it because, obviously, this spirit we call Christ is already in them. You know, we have our stories and our explanations and our beliefs...to guide us. But...unfortunately, in established religion, we don't listen to God ourselves. We listen to someone with the power to interpret what can be very damaging if interpretted incorrectly.

Established religion is for learning. How many Christians never move beyond learning? To doing? To not needing the constant reassurances of a group of people comprising a church? To not desiring the social inclusion that group provides?

It is my feeling, regarding my faith, that as the world evolves, so does religion. And historically we have witnessed some...interesting evolution in religious thought. What confuses me is why so many Christians are so desperate to believe that the ONLY way the spirit of Christ, which we believe in, can move people is through the immature rituals and teachings of Scripture. It is for the immature, the young in faith, those seeking. We call it being fed.

You know what though? Not everyone needs "fed". Christ didn't need fed.

I refuse to reject non-believers as somehow less than me. They are not. They are most certainly not.

And as I recall, the man we call Christ was rejected in his day, too.

Non-believers. That's what we turn ourselves into when we think "the old ways" are the only ways. Isn't that exactly the point of Christ's teachings? Why do we "need" to be compelled to do for others? Non-believers don't. Why do we claim that it is only OUR way through Christ that can compel godliness?

I'm not rejecting your personal beliefs, but I have to say that my own beliefs have gone beyond the very restrictive limits of Scripture. Not by any choice of my own, but by remaining open to the reality that God is living, breathing, still teaching and evolving. I cannot walk in the steps of Christ if I do not have the faith that he had to walk outside the beaten path. And that's just how I see it.

[willhaven]

From only that can you conclude anything at all if someone says it is snowing in Fresno?That it's a damn rare day. I grew up there and only saw it hail one time and snow one time.


From just that can you accurately determine anything at all about how much Bob makes?Not exactly, but he's more likely to be making more money than his friends without degrees.


From just that can you accurately predict what the actual beliefs are of any random Christian?Not of any. Just most of them.


From that can you exclude the posibility that people may be mistaken about what will actually benefit them?Of course they can be mistaken. Look at the Heaven's Gate nuts who committed suicide in the 90s. They were mistaken about what would benefit them and they killed themselves as a result. They were delusional and believed that they were headed to heaven with their purple face handkerchiefs and Nike running shoes.


To the individual Christian.To the individual Christian, you can't know for sure. But statistically, you can be pretty sure that most of them believe in heaven in hell and that they have a vested interest in choosing heaven for themselves. That choice is mostly for themselves. The fact that they are also doing god's will is coincidental. If god's will would put them in hell, they'd be pretty reluctant to follow god's will.

Keeping yourself from physical harm (aside from breathing) is one of the most important things to a human being. If a Christian can be persuaded to believe that they have two choices: an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell, they're going to be apt to choose the option that keeps them from harm.


That's my point. Why even mention it?Because that is one of the facets of the discussion happening in this thread.


And it has been rightly pointed out many times that their "motivations" are meaningless. The only possible reason to care about someone else's motivations instead of their actions is a desire to make them think the way one wishes them to think.Actions matter more than motivations, but in regards to this thread and the discussion of why Christians believe they exist, their motivations naturally come into question.


Which you simply assume they do without offering any evidence beyond your own assertion that they do. That they may not mention their motivations may simply mean that they don't feel they need to explain their motivations any and every time they act- which is again, a common human behviour, not a exclusively "Christian" one, and thus does not even warrant mention.Nearly every human being instinctively acts upon selfish desires. The fact that they don't point this out in their daily lives is to be expected if you're a regular person with no religion. But aren't Christians are supposed to reject their selfish desires? If one of their reasons for belief is a selfish one, isn't that a bit of a contradiction?


Which you assume is true, completely ignoring the possiblity that these are the genuine motivations, or what the actor percieves as the more signifigant of potentially several concurrent motivations.They perceive it that way because they likely believe that god wants them to view "doing it for god" as more important than "I'm doing this for myself."

It's just convenient for the general Christian that the actions that provide them with eternal salvation are also the actions that god wants them to perform. Put those two at odds with one another and how many Christians do you honestly think would continue to follow god if he would send them to hell? How many would turn against god and go to heaven instead?

If a Christian could honestly truly be convinced that following Jesus' principles would land them in hell, would they still follow him? Of course not.

Their natural inclination to save themselves from harm outweighs any ideology.

[Piscivore]

That it's a damn rare day. I grew up there and only saw it hail one time and snow one time.


Not exactly, but he's more likely to be making more money than his friends without degrees.


Not of any. Just most of them.


Of course they can be mistaken.
So, in every case, your "generally" fails as a reliable test for truth. Therefore, "generally" is meaningless for coming to rational conclusions.

Look at the Heaven's Gate nuts who committed suicide in the 90s. They were mistaken about what would benefit them and they killed themselves as a result.
They were mistaken about what would benefit them according to your values. We can't ask them how they feel about their descision now.

To the individual Christian, you can't know for sure.
Exactly.

But statistically, you can be pretty sure that most of them believe in heaven in hell and that they have a vested interest in choosing heaven for themselves.
No, you can guess. Statistics is meaningless as a test for what an actual Christian believes.

But aren't Christians are supposed to reject their selfish desires?
Are they? All of them? Always?

That's another gross generalisation that may or may not be true for any particular Christian. Using such assumptions as if they were a fact is inviting error.

If one of their reasons for belief is a selfish one, isn't that a bit of a contradiction?
That's a big if, one that you have offered no evidence at all to suggest is the case. Whatever conclusion to which you thereby come is based not on reason, but on assumption and bias.

They perceive it that way because they likely believe that god wants them to view "doing it for god" as more important than "I'm doing this for myself."
Reading minds again? You simply do not get to dictate what others percieve because it supports your bias- not and make any honest claim to reason, at least.

It's just convenient for the general Christian that the actions that provide them with eternal salvation are also the actions that god wants them to perform.
What is wrong with that?

Put those two at odds with one another and how many Christians do you honestly think would continue to follow god if he would send them to hell? How many would turn against god and go to heaven instead?

If a Christian could honestly truly be convinced that following Jesus' principles would land them in hell, would they still follow him? Of course not.
"If things were different, they'd be different" is meaningless. One can draw no reasonable conclustions from such speculations. One can neatly reinforce one's prejudices that way, however.

Their natural inclination to save themselves from harm outweighs any ideology.
No, rather the ideology is based upon the "natural inclination to save themselves from harm". What is wrong with that?

There are plenty of things to criticise about theism and Christianity without using childish sophistry and a raft of fallacy to invent new ones.

[AdinDraco]

<snip>

What if you're right?
And he was just another nice guy
What if you're right?
What if it's true?
They say the cross will only make a fool of you
And what if it's true?

<snip> etc etc etc

Lord, please not Pascal's Wager! This argument is so full of holes and so thoroughly refuted as to be laughable. I'll try to track down a link to one of Matt Dilahunty's excellent rants about it (he has done one, right?!) should it pop up again. Ah, I just remembered that if someone brought up Pascal's Wager, then they wanted to spin a wheel with a hundred religions on it and when it came up Christian, then pull a wheel with a hundred christian sects and spin that...

[willhaven]

So, in every case, your "generally" fails as a reliable test for truth. Therefore, "generally" is meaningless for coming to rational conclusions.No, in most cases "generally" can be relied upon. This is why generalizations exist.

Most Christians believe in heaven and/or hell. In that case, Christians make their decision to become or stay a Christian based on self interest due to implied reward or punishment.

In most cases that is generally true. Christians are not immune to human nature.


They were mistaken about what would benefit them according to your values. We can't ask them how they feel about their descision now.Whether they were mistaken is irrelevant and is not what I am arguing. What is relevant is that they did what they thought would benefit them. Just as a Christian who believes in heaven will follow Christianity in order to go there. They do it because they want the reward.


No, you can guess. Statistics is meaningless as a test for what an actual Christian believes. True, but since this thread is talking about Christians in the plural sense, statistics are meaningful. Generalizations are meaningful. Most Christians believe in heaven and want to go there because they want to be rewarded.


Are they? All of them? Always?

That's another gross generalisation that may or may not be true for any particular Christian. Using such assumptions as if they were a fact is inviting error.Yeah, error on the ends of the bell curve. There will always be standouts, but it doesn't mean that trends do not exist.


That's a big if, one that you have offered no evidence at all to suggest is the case. Whatever conclusion to which you thereby come is based not on reason, but on assumption and bias.Or their own professed beliefs in conjunction with observations of human nature. I'm not just pulling things out of my ass. Christians tend to believe in heaven and/or hell. If they do and they're still a Christian, that punishment/reward scenario plays on some of their most primal human instincts.


"If things were different, they'd be different" is meaningless. One can draw no reasonable conclustions from such speculations. One can neatly reinforce one's prejudices that way, however.You can absolutely draw conclusions from it. Honestly, if the bible taught that following Jesus would send you to hell, who would still follow Jesus? Who would bother to come to church or even read the book if there were nothing in it for the believer?

If you were offered a part time job helping out at a homeless shelter with no pay and no health benefits, but after 10 years of work you were guaranteed enough money to make you wealthy, many of us would do that. If you are told that if you don't take the job, in 10 years you will be hunted down, tortured and killed, taking the job looks that much better. In fact, you might be more apt to openly enjoy your work at the homeless shelter in front of your boss when you know that your future torture and death may be on the line. You do your work with a smile on your face and you enjoy it at least partly because you know you will be rewarded.

Now swap the wealth and the death. Who would take job then?

To the overwhelming majority of people, their physical safety and keeping themselves from pain is incredibly important. More important than, say, helping people at a homeless shelter or trying to walk in Jesus' footsteps.

Now, Christians may enjoy helping people and may believe that doing what Jesus taught is a good thing. And it may very well be a good thing. But, in the grand scheme of things, their own future and comfort are far more important. Luckily for them, Christianity offers both. If Christianity offered an eternity of anguish for their followers, it wouldn't be nearly as alluring.

When Christianity is sold to people in this manner, it plays on some of our most primal instincts. Is it all Christianity is? No. Is it a component in the belief structure of most Christians? Absolutely.

No, rather the ideology is based upon the "natural inclination to save themselves from harm". What is wrong with that?

There are plenty of things to criticise about theism and Christianity without using childish sophistry and a raft of fallacy to invent new ones.The ideology is based on their selfish instincts to save themselves from harm. That's part of my point. If the ideology were based on causing great harm to yourself, many would reject the ideology. Why? Because, for most Christians, keeping yourself from harm is far more important than anything else the ideology has to offer. The ideology does offer more positive things for the Christian, but they are simply icing on the cake. The cake being, of course, heaven.

There is nothing fallacious about the idea that:
1) Most humans act out of self interest. Especially in regards to physical harm.
2) Most sects of Christianity offer reward and/or punishment to their followers based on their adherence to Christian principles.
3) Followers of Christianity that believe in those rewards and/or punishments are at least partly coerced into following Christian principles. These are principles that they might not have chosen to follow otherwise.

[dafydd]

Hey Pure Agent I can't help it if you take it as I'm preaching, the truth is still the truth and only Jesus can open anyones eyes to it!

At this point I would just like to refer you to some great lyrics by Nichole Nordeman here as my reply because I couldn't say it any better than she does in this song. In fact if I can find a link to her myspace or song I will add the link because I think you all should here it. Here you go... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ScWCfNPpI

What if you're right?
And he was just another nice guy
What if you're right?
What if it's true?
They say the cross will only make a fool of you
And what if it's true?

What if he takes his place in history
With all the prophets and the kings
Who taught us love and came in peace
But then the story ends
What then?

But what if you're wrong?
What if there's more?
What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?
What if you jump?
And just close your eyes?
What if the arms that catch you, catch you by surprise?
What if He's more than enough?
What if it's love?

What if you dig
Way down deeper than your simple-minded friends
What if you dig?
What if you find
A thousand more unanswered questions down inside
That's all you find?

What if you pick apart the logic
And begin to poke the holes
What if the crown of thorns is no more
Than folklore that must be told and retold?

You've been running as fast as you can
You've been looking for a place you can land for so long
But what if you?re wrong?

What if you are wrong?

[dann]

Ask a devout Christian why they exist and what their goal in life is, and they will tell you "to go to Heaven".
Not true in many cases - in Denmark probably not true in most cases.

And if these Christians are convinced that the next life is a fake, they have no reason to live??

You appear to have reversed cause and effect: People who are convinced that this life sucks need to believe that they get another chance, that 'walking through the valley of tears' serves a purpose - other than making other people rich, for instance.

In this millennium a Danish vicar, Thorkild Grosbøll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorkild_Grosb%C3%B8ll), not only said that he does not believe in God, he also claimed that ’only naive country people are able to believe that God created the world and that there is life after death’: ”Som Tårbæk præsten Grosbøl sagde, så er det kun Ane i Kæret som kan tro på, at Gud har skabt verden, og at der er et liv efter døden.” http://kritiskdebat.dk/artikel.php?id=688
He was reprimanded by his superiors in the Danish State Church (You shouldn’t be that outspoken!), but he was backed up by his congregation, who preferred Grosbøll to God!
In Denmark a vicar actually demanded that the resurrection and life everlasting be resurrected in the Danish church in order to present an alternative to the belief in reincarnation, since ’a new survey shows that the majority of vicars avoid the themes of resurrection and life everlasting when they speak at funerals’.
”Hans kritik understøttes af en nyere undersøgelse, der viser, at langt de fleste præster i høj grad undgår emnerne opstandelse og det evige liv i deres begravelsestaler. Det er problematisk, når andre undersøgelser samtidig viser, at hver femte dansker tror på reinkarnation, mener Johannes Værge.” http://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/artikel/301860:Kirke---tro--Det-evige-liv-skal-genoplives
http://www.hvisgudersvaret.dk/forandring.htm

See also Phil Zuckerman’s new book about religion in Denmark and Sweden, Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment (http://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/0814797148) – discussed in this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138024

[kurious_kathy]

I never claimed you (or I) were geniuses either.
You ignored my question.
What if you are wrong?

If I am to error in anyway, I'll find out once I cross over into eternity. but I know this one thing without a doubt, Jesus is who he says he is in the scriptures! Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God, Holy One, Emmanuel, Prince of Peace, the great I Am, Wonderful Counselor, Eternal Father, Mighty God, and he is our Risen Lord!

I know Jesus is the truth, "because he lives in ME," and once the Son has set us free from the lies of this world and the condemnation of sin, you are free indeed!! It is the very truth of God, and there is no other God. Other religions serve false God's, Jesus is the one that is TRUE! I tell you the truth, He is more than just words on a page. our God is ALIVE!

[Cleon]

If I am to error in anyway, I'll find out once I cross over into eternity. but I know this one thing without a doubt, Jesus is who he says he is in the scriptures! Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God, Holy One, Emmanuel, Prince of Peace, the great I Am, Wonderful Counselor, Eternal Father, Mighty God, and he is our Risen Lord!

I know Jesus is the truth, "because he lives in ME," and once the Son has set us free from the lies of this world and the condemnation of sin, you are free indeed!! It is the very truth of God, and there is no other God. Other religions serve false God's, Jesus is the one that is TRUE! I tell you the truth, He is more than just words on a page. our God is ALIVE!

Well, that's convincing.

[Hokulele]

It's as if someone wrote a keyboard macro to paste in generic "Yippee! Jesus!" phrases.

[RoboTimbo]

If I am to error in anyway, I'll find out once I cross over into eternity. but I know this one thing without a doubt, Jesus is who he says he is in the scriptures! Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God, Holy One, Emmanuel, Prince of Peace, the great I Am, Wonderful Counselor, Eternal Father, Mighty God, and he is our Risen Lord!

I know Jesus is the truth, "because he lives in ME," and once the Son has set us free from the lies of this world and the condemnation of sin, you are free indeed!! It is the very truth of God, and there is no other God. Other religions serve false God's, Jesus is the one that is TRUE! I tell you the truth, He is more than just words on a page. our God is ALIVE!

Since your record for telling the truth has been spotty, do you have anything more than "I believe!"?

[Piscivore]

No, in most cases "generally" can be relied upon. This is why generalizations exist.

Most Christians believe in heaven and/or hell. In that case, Christians make their decision to become or stay a Christian based on self interest due to implied reward or punishment.

In most cases that is generally true. Christians are not immune to human nature.


Whether they were mistaken is irrelevant and is not what I am arguing. What is relevant is that they did what they thought would benefit them. Just as a Christian who believes in heaven will follow Christianity in order to go there. They do it because they want the reward.


True, but since this thread is talking about Christians in the plural sense, statistics are meaningful. Generalizations are meaningful. Most Christians believe in heaven and want to go there because they want to be rewarded.


Yeah, error on the ends of the bell curve. There will always be standouts, but it doesn't mean that trends do not exist.


Or their own professed beliefs in conjunction with observations of human nature. I'm not just pulling things out of my ass. Christians tend to believe in heaven and/or hell. If they do and they're still a Christian, that punishment/reward scenario plays on some of their most primal human instincts.


You can absolutely draw conclusions from it. Honestly, if the bible taught that following Jesus would send you to hell, who would still follow Jesus? Who would bother to come to church or even read the book if there were nothing in it for the believer?

If you were offered a part time job helping out at a homeless shelter with no pay and no health benefits, but after 10 years of work you were guaranteed enough money to make you wealthy, many of us would do that. If you are told that if you don't take the job, in 10 years you will be hunted down, tortured and killed, taking the job looks that much better. In fact, you might be more apt to openly enjoy your work at the homeless shelter in front of your boss when you know that your future torture and death may be on the line. You do your work with a smile on your face and you enjoy it at least partly because you know you will be rewarded.

Now swap the wealth and the death. Who would take job then?

To the overwhelming majority of people, their physical safety and keeping themselves from pain is incredibly important. More important than, say, helping people at a homeless shelter or trying to walk in Jesus' footsteps.

Now, Christians may enjoy helping people and may believe that doing what Jesus taught is a good thing. And it may very well be a good thing. But, in the grand scheme of things, their own future and comfort are far more important. Luckily for them, Christianity offers both. If Christianity offered an eternity of anguish for their followers, it wouldn't be nearly as alluring.

When Christianity is sold to people in this manner, it plays on some of our most primal instincts. Is it all Christianity is? No. Is it a component in the belief structure of most Christians? Absolutely.

The ideology is based on their selfish instincts to save themselves from harm. That's part of my point. If the ideology were based on causing great harm to yourself, many would reject the ideology. Why? Because, for most Christians, keeping yourself from harm is far more important than anything else the ideology has to offer. The ideology does offer more positive things for the Christian, but they are simply icing on the cake. The cake being, of course, heaven.

There is nothing fallacious about the idea that:
1) Most humans act out of self interest. Especially in regards to physical harm.
2) Most sects of Christianity offer reward and/or punishment to their followers based on their adherence to Christian principles.
3) Followers of Christianity that believe in those rewards and/or punishments are at least partly coerced into following Christian principles. These are principles that they might not have chosen to follow otherwise.

I tell you what- next time your car won't start, whine to someone that it "generally" starts and see how far that gets you.

[Pure_Argent]

If I am to error in anyway, I'll find out once I cross over into eternity.

Actually, no. If you're wrong, you won't ever know it, because you won't cross over into eternity.

but I know this one thing without a doubt, Jesus is who he says he is in the scriptures! Jesus is the Messiah, Son of God, Holy One, Emmanuel, Prince of Peace, the great I Am, Wonderful Counselor, Eternal Father, Mighty God, and he is our Risen Lord!

Mmm. Really?

I know Jesus is the truth, "because he lives in ME," and once the Son has set us free from the lies of this world and the condemnation of sin, you are free indeed!! It is the very truth of God, and there is no other God. Other religions serve false God's, Jesus is the one that is TRUE! I tell you the truth, He is more than just words on a page. our God is ALIVE!

Can ya gimme HALLELUJIA!
- Robert "Sunlight" Gardener, the best villain ever
The Talisman, Stephen King and Peter Straub

[joobz]

If I am to error in anyway, I'll find out once I cross over into eternity.
as we all will. but you didn't actually answer my question. You said a variety of "I believe. I DO I DO I DO!!" Statements. Almost like it was a shield against considering the question I asked.

You are the one who invoked Pascal's Wager. You made the suggestion that I could (or atheists) could be wrong. Well, that question is a multilane road. It could be that the Muslims were right, or the Hindus, or the Shintos, or the Pagans, or the Mormons, or Christians, or NONE of them. The pure fact is NO ONE KNOWS.

Consider that the next time you try to use the "what if you are wrong" gambit. Unless you are willing to consider it truthfully and it's ramifications, the question is only an exercise in hypocrisy.

[willhaven]

I tell you what- next time your car won't start, whine to someone that it "generally" starts and see how far that gets you.Yes, my vehicle generally does what I want it to. And Christians are generally in it for the payoff.

[sugarb]

Yes, my vehicle generally does what I want it to. And Christians are generally in it for the payoff.

And politicians are generally in it for the money. And atheists are generally in it for ... And muslims are generally in it for ... Teachers are generally in it for ... *sigh*

Coal miners are generally in it for ... Store clerks are generally in it for ... Doctors are usually in it for ...

People posting on message boards are generally in it for ...

Everything has some kind of payoff. What's yours?

What's the "payoff" in telling Christians their reason for existence is "pathetic"? Care to share? What's in that for you?

[Piscivore]

Yes, my vehicle generally does what I want it to.
But that doesn't tell you anything about what it is going to do at any particular instance. That's why it is a fallacy.

And Christians are generally in it for the payoff.
Which is demonstrably just meaningless prejudice.

[negativ]

No one is a moral person, that is the whole point. It is impossible for us to follow the 116 laws in the OT. The law is there to show us that we can never meet God's standard, hence the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

We aren't supposed to live a perfect life, because that is impossible. But we are supposed to strive every single day to try and live a perfect life, and God will change our hearts to make us more like Jesus.

The Goal isn't heaven, the goal is eternal life. Heaven is only an intermediate step from this life to our resurrection bodies, on this earth.

There might be many people who are non believers who live better lives than believers, but it isn't what you do that matters, as that cannot save you, but what you believe.

If you do not follow the letter of the law, every single law, then you are not perfect, and without being perfect you cannot enter heaven. The death of Jesus on the cross covers a Christians sin, so that we are not judged for that sin, but how we lived as Christians. What we did with the gifts we have.

There many be a lot of problems in the Church today, but they are at least trying, which is exactly what God wants.

Take a look at David. He was a man after God, yet he slept with a married woman and had her husband killed. He was a sinner through and through, and yet he was eventually redeemed by God.


So, what you're saying is:

* we are created sick and commanded to be well or else;
* we are perfectly incapable of being well and have no real choice in the matter regardless;
* however, the god who made these rules came down once upon a time and had himself tortured to death temporarily to assuage his own anger at our built-in inability to be "sinless";
* our actions are completely meaningless but it's our imagination that counts

Can you really not grasp how breathtakingly stupid this all is?

[willhaven]

And politicians are generally in it for the money. And atheists are generally in it for ... And muslims are generally in it for ... Teachers are generally in it for ... *sigh*

Coal miners are generally in it for ... Store clerks are generally in it for ... Doctors are usually in it for ...

People posting on message boards are generally in it for ...And this thread is about Christians. So Christians are generally in it for the payoff of eternal life and salvation from hell.


What's the "payoff" in telling Christians their reason for existence is "pathetic"? Care to share? What's in that for you?I never said it was pathetic.

What's in it for me? Every time I debate or have theological/philosophical conversations like this I explore my own beliefs and the beliefs of others. Sometimes (as in this thread) I learn something new. Usually I just explore new facets of religion and belief. I often find new ways to approach the arguments and tie religion and (ir)rationality together.

If I can cause someone to question their beliefs, that's great. If they cause me to question mine, that's great too.


But that doesn't tell you anything about what it is going to do at any particular instance. That's why it is a fallacy.When we're talking about particular instances, we can slice it more thinly. When we're speaking about Christians as a group, we tend to speak in generalities. There is no manner in which you can speak about any group or anything beyond an individual with 100% certainty. This is why, when talking about large groups of people with similar beliefs, we use generalities. Generalities apply characteristics to the majority of a group. Characteristics that the majority of the group share.

There are many characteristics that nearly all human beings share and Christians are no different.


Which is demonstrably just meaningless prejudice.Except that prejudice has a negative connotation. I'm not calling it a negative quality, though they may view it that way. In general, I just think they're equally as selfish as every other person, regardless of their religion.

[hamelekim]

Hello, Hamelekim. Yeah, but you know what? If non-believers are living better lives than believers, they surely aren't doing it because they think they should, or they feel like they have to. They are doing it because, obviously, this spirit we call Christ is already in them. You know, we have our stories and our explanations and our beliefs...to guide us. But...unfortunately, in established religion, we don't listen to God ourselves. We listen to someone with the power to interpret what can be very damaging if interpretted incorrectly.

The Bible is clear that you can do works without being saved. The Pharisees were like this. They had the outward appearance of being Godly men, but their hearts were not of God.

When a Christian does good works it is because they are attempting to do God's will, not their own.

Anyone who does good works without accepting God, and without doing those works because they want to do God's will, does not have the Holy Spirit in them. They do such things for their own reasons, which are not of God.


Established religion is for learning. How many Christians never move beyond learning? To doing? To not needing the constant reassurances of a group of people comprising a church? To not desiring the social inclusion that group provides?

It is my feeling, regarding my faith, that as the world evolves, so does religion. And historically we have witnessed some...interesting evolution in religious thought. What confuses me is why so many Christians are so desperate to believe that the ONLY way the spirit of Christ, which we believe in, can move people is through the immature rituals and teachings of Scripture. It is for the immature, the young in faith, those seeking. We call it being fed.

Religion is a waste of time. Religion leads to death, just as the Pharisees were dead in spirit. They became focused on outward appearance of religion rather than the inward spiritual relationship.

Christianity is about a personal relationship with Christ, which much of the Church does not have these days. Or when they do have a "personal relationship" with Jesus they are more about showing off how righteous they are rather than actually doing God's will for his glory.

You know what though? Not everyone needs "fed". Christ didn't need fed.

I refuse to reject non-believers as somehow less than me. They are not. They are most certainly not.

And as I recall, the man we call Christ was rejected in his day, too.

Non-believers. That's what we turn ourselves into when we think "the old ways" are the only ways. Isn't that exactly the point of Christ's teachings? Why do we "need" to be compelled to do for others? Non-believers don't. Why do we claim that it is only OUR way through Christ that can compel godliness?

I'm not rejecting your personal beliefs, but I have to say that my own beliefs have gone beyond the very restrictive limits of Scripture. Not by any choice of my own, but by remaining open to the reality that God is living, breathing, still teaching and evolving. I cannot walk in the steps of Christ if I do not have the faith that he had to walk outside the beaten path. And that's just how I see it.

The only thing we have of truth is scripture. The human heart is wicked and deceitful. Because of this we have to rely on scripture and compare ourselves to scripture. If you begin to do anything else you risk apostasy.

[hamelekim]

So, what you're saying is:

* we are created sick and commanded to be well or else;
* we are perfectly incapable of being well and have no real choice in the matter regardless;
* however, the god who made these rules came down once upon a time and had himself tortured to death temporarily to assuage his own anger at our built-in inability to be "sinless";
* our actions are completely meaningless but it's our imagination that counts

Can you really not grasp how breathtakingly stupid this all is?

Yes, we did disobey God, and because of that we deserve eternal punishment.

God could have destroyed Adam and Eve when they sinned, but he allowed it to continue so that he could show his glory and righteousness through the salvation of some and judgement of the rest.

The Bible is clear that we have a choice, free will, but that we will only make the right choice if God draws us to him. We never seek out God unless he calls us to him.

God didn't "make the rules" in regards to how he conducts himself. He is constrained by his very nature. He is just, righteous, fair, infinite, etc...

Yes, God used his own death for his own purposes to save anyone who would believe in him. But only those who God chooses to save believe in him.

Our actions are absolutely meaningful and they are going to be used to condemn each any every person who does not believe.

Of course this seems stupid to you because you do not believe. It is foolishness to you, the Bible is clear on this.

The truth is, God's ways are not our ways, and his thoughts are not ours. He is infinite, and we cannot possibly understand God without him giving us understanding.

Because his nature is absolutely perfect we know that whatever he decides is right, and if we disagree then we are wrong. Whether you agree with that or not is meaningless because nothing you say or do will change the reality of the situation.

[sugarb]

And this thread is about Christians. So Christians are generally in it for the payoff of eternal life and salvation from hell.


I never said it was pathetic.

What's in it for me? Every time I debate or have theological/philosophical conversations like this I explore my own beliefs and the beliefs of others. Sometimes (as in this thread) I learn something new. Usually I just explore new facets of religion and belief. I often find new ways to approach the arguments and tie religion and (ir)rationality together.

If I can cause someone to question their beliefs, that's great. If they cause me to question mine, that's great too.


When we're talking about particular instances, we can slice it more thinly. When we're speaking about Christians as a group, we tend to speak in generalities. There is no manner in which you can speak about any group or anything beyond an individual with 100% certainty. This is why, when talking about large groups of people with similar beliefs, we use generalities. Generalities apply characteristics to the majority of a group. Characteristics that the majority of the group share.

There are many characteristics that nearly all human beings share and Christians are no different.


Except that prejudice has a negative connotation. I'm not calling it a negative quality, though they may view it that way. In general, I just think they're equally as selfish as every other person, regardless of their religion.

Hello, Willhaven. I think it is important to not necessarily be constantly questioning our own beliefs, but to be exploring them (as well as others). Yes, that does help me to learn more, too. My reference to "pathetic" regarded the title of this thread...I realize that it is the "reason" considered pathetic...however, I'm not sure that this selfisness you talk about *is* the "reason" people have faith.

I can tell you, for myself, that it would be in ways, I suspect, more enjoyable, and I would be able to be *more* "selfish" were I to be able to convince myself to believe differently than I do. My beliefs aren't something I chose, necessarily. Granted, I could probably choose to change who and how I am, and have indeed attempted just that, many times...but I always return to who I am now. I was raised in church, to begin with. In that upbringing, as I grew older, many of the teachings didn't rest well in my head or my heart. For instance, even to this day it pains me to see an elaborate multi-million dollar church facility in a neighborhood where many people are living in shacks. I cannot tell you why that bothers me, just that it does...and using that example, yes, I think there is an element of the selfish and prideful. But...to me, what that displays is worse than mere selfishness or pride (which, you are correct, all people display at one time or another, for one reason or another).

I never did think that my faith was supposed to be a comfortable place. I never did think that I was supposed to reach a point of self-satisfaction (I am never satisfied with myself, I always believe I can do more for people, even at times I don't have much money. One thing I always have is time).

To be completely honest with you, I do not feel "at home" with many professed Christians. I do not feel a kinship or fellowship with them. I am uncomfortable in the fellowship halls with the tables of food when I know so many more are hungry, all for the sake of a "good time". I can not tell you why I am uncomfortable in that, just that I am. And I think that many Christians are. I think that many of us feel...removed from the organized parts of our faith. Sure, churches take supplies to hurricane victims...great. But...what about the alcoholic in the local bar, or the kids down the road that go to bed cold, or the teenagers walking the roads at 2 a.m.? What about the dogs and cats that nobody wants, doomed to die? What about the thousands upon thousands of children, no longer cute and in diapers, waiting for homes? What about the widows or abandoned single mothers, the single fathers, struggling alone?

Churches want to look at society and say society is against them. Particularly in our political environment. But the truth is that society has been abandoned by the churches. So much missionary work is based on getting people to "accept Christ" instead of just freely helping others, with no conditions. I've seen and heard it written and said that it is almost like Christians are trying to bring about the end of time in their fervor to get everyone to accept Christ...and I can see some truth in that.

I can say to any person, a thousand times in twenty minutes, that God is great, Holy Holy Holy, and on and on and on...but what does it MEAN? What does it MEAN? So much Christianity is lip service, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Churches, denominations, cannot agree on tithes, baptism, divorce, and on and on and on...but God is great. And I sometimes think they do not realize, in their petty bickering and disagreements and judgements upon one another (not to mention everyone else), how they make their God look to the rest of the world. They make their God look weak and spiteful.

To me, that is not God. To me, God is nowhere in all that. In fact, in my daily life? I don't walk around professing God or my faith. I rarely even talk about it, though I'm often approached *to* talk about it with. I don't need to, I don't feel a need to...though I very much enjoy discussions like this one. Sometimes I feel like, in daily life...well, as an example: I used to work with a man, self professed Christian, and in our workplace, it was not uncommon for him to fall on the floor, grab someone's hand, and start praying for them. He talked and talked and talked about it...but then? When it came time to work? He grumbled and grumbled and grumbled. And I think sometimes, in my daily life, that those who are the most obnoxious about it are probably really trying to convince themselves that they are what they want to be by convincing others that's what they are. Does that make sense?

But I don't think it's necessarily selfishness. Like in the last case? I think it is insecurity, a need to believe, a want to belong...and I think that signifies the greatest failure of todays churches--that anyone feels THAT far removed, they need to resort to convincing others to convince themselves.

[Elizabeth I]

Yes, we did disobey God, and because of that we deserve eternal punishment.

God could have destroyed Adam and Eve when they sinned, but he allowed it to continue so that he could show his glory and righteousness through the salvation of some and judgement of the rest.

The Bible is clear that we have a choice, free will, but that we will only make the right choice if God draws us to him. We never seek out God unless he calls us to him.

God didn't "make the rules" in regards to how he conducts himself. He is constrained by his very nature. He is just, righteous, fair, infinite, etc...

Yes, God used his own death for his own purposes to save anyone who would believe in him. But only those who God chooses to save believe in him.

Our actions are absolutely meaningful and they are going to be used to condemn each any every person who does not believe.

Of course this seems stupid to you because you do not believe. It is foolishness to you, the Bible is clear on this.

The truth is, God's ways are not our ways, and his thoughts are not ours. He is infinite, and we cannot possibly understand God without him giving us understanding.

Because his nature is absolutely perfect we know that whatever he decides is right, and if we disagree then we are wrong. Whether you agree with that or not is meaningless because nothing you say or do will change the reality of the situation.

:words:

...blah blah blah blah, and not a damn thing we haven't heard before.

[Pure_Argent]

God didn't "make the rules" in regards to how he conducts himself. He is constrained by his very nature. He is just, righteous, fair, infinite, etc...

Then he's not all-powerful, now is he?

[joobz]

Anyone who does good works without accepting God,...They do such things for their own reasons, which are not of God.
... The human heart is wicked and deceitful.
This whole piece is born of evil. My children are not wicked or deceitful. You are rather sad individual if you believe this of people.
Claiming it is not enough to do good is one of the most vile aspects of you form of christianity.


Because of this we have to rely on scripture and compare ourselves to scripture. If you begin to do anything else you risk apostasy.
I don't hold slaves or condone slavery. The bible does.
I reject genocide and the slaughtering of children and babies. The bible does.
I reject the notion of homosexuality as evil. The bible does.
I reject the idea of thought crimes. the bible advocates such nonsense.

[jenski]

God could have destroyed Adam and Eve when they sinned, but he allowed it to continue so that he could show his glory and righteousness through the salvation of some and judgement of the rest.

Show his glory and righteousness to whom? If Adam and Eve had been destroyed, who would be around to care how glorious and righteous it all was?

[hamelekim]

Then he's not all-powerful, now is he?

He is all powerful within his nature. But yes he is constrained. God cannot lie, he cannot be unjust, he cannot be unrighteous.

I would argue that is a good thing that his nature does not change, and that he is not capable of evil.

[hamelekim]

Show his glory and righteousness to whom? If Adam and Eve had been destroyed, who would be around to care how glorious and righteous it all was?

That's what I said in my post. God has a plan for Christians to rule with Christ for all eternity. To be glorified as we glorify God.

[hamelekim]

This whole piece is born of evil. My children are not wicked or deceitful. You are rather sad individual if you believe this of people.
Claiming it is not enough to do good is one of the most vile aspects of you form of christianity.

I believe this of all humanity, myself included. I would like to say otherwise, but I would be a liar if I said that. This is what the Bible teaches.

I don't hold slaves or condone slavery. The bible does.
I reject genocide and the slaughtering of children and babies. The bible does.
I reject the notion of homosexuality as evil. The bible does.
I reject the idea of thought crimes. the bible advocates such nonsense.
The Bible doesn't support slavery. Slavery isn't a good thing in the Bible.

The Bible doesn't support Genocide. It supports God's right to judge the nations and people of this world. That includes wiping out people whom God wants, for his own purposes.

Since you do not believe in God of course you accept homosexuality as being fine. That is your choice but the Bible is clear on the morality of such behavior.

The Bible is all about attitude of the mind. Our physical actions are an outgrowth of our thoughts. Hence the sin starts with our very thoughts, and is expressed in our actions. Not nonsense at all.

[sphenisc]

There is plenty of evidence. How many Christians believe that their religion is a net positive for them? How many Christians believe that their religion is a net negative for them, or that it will be detrimental for them?

Every person generally makes choices for themselves that are beneficial. People tend to make selfish decisions for their own good. A Christian choosing to believe in that religion also make a selfish decision.

What they believe may drive them to make a different choice than an atheist would, but the decision is no less selfish. It's no less selfish than someone stealing a loaf of bread from a store.


There is no point claiming of something if you don't first of all have an agreed definition. Since you haven't provided one then no matter how much evidence you provide for what you think "selfishness" is, I won't be accepting it until we have an agreed definition for the term. So far nothing you've described matches my definition.


SELFISHNESS: The quality or state of being selfish; exclusive regard to one's own interest or happiness; that supreme self-love or self-preference which leads a person to direct his purposes to the advancement of his own interest, power, or happiness, without regarding those of others.

[jenski]

That's what I said in my post. God has a plan for Christians to rule with Christ for all eternity. To be glorified as we glorify God.

How small-minded. "I must have people praising me eternally"

[joobz]

I believe this of all humanity, myself included. I would like to say otherwise, but I would be a liar if I said that. This is what the Bible teaches.
then you believe horrible things.

The Bible doesn't support slavery. Slavery isn't a good thing in the Bible.
Jesus uses slavery and the beating of slaves as an allegory for our relationship with god.
If the bible doesn't view slavery as a good thing, than it also views our relationship with god as not a good thing.


The Bible doesn't support Genocide. It supports God's right to judge the nations and people of this world.
it shows god flooding the world (including animals and children). That's genocide.

That includes wiping out people whom God wants, for his own purposes.
psst. That's called genocide....and evil.

Since you do not believe in God of course you accept homosexuality as being fine. That is your choice but the Bible is clear on the morality of such behavior.
and another reason why the bible is immoral.
Don't forget that the bible places women as second class citizens. Do you advocate that as well?

The Bible is all about attitude of the mind. Our physical actions are an outgrowth of our thoughts. Hence the sin starts with our very thoughts, and is expressed in our actions. Not nonsense at all.
What goes on in my head is my business and my business alone.

If a person doesn't act on the thoughts, they are nothing more than thoughts.

To dream of curing cancer doesn't mean I get credit of curing cancer. Only curing cancer would actually give me the credit of curing cancer.

Similarly, to dream of having sex with 100 naked romans doesn't give me credit of actually having sex with 100 naked romans. Only if I had sex with 100 naked romans, would I get credit for having sex with 100 naked romans.

[bruto]

I believe this of all humanity, myself included. I would like to say otherwise, but I would be a liar if I said that. This is what the Bible teaches.

The Bible doesn't support slavery. Slavery isn't a good thing in the Bible.

The Bible doesn't support Genocide. It supports God's right to judge the nations and people of this world. That includes wiping out people whom God wants, for his own purposes.

Since you do not believe in God of course you accept homosexuality as being fine. That is your choice but the Bible is clear on the morality of such behavior.

The Bible is all about attitude of the mind. Our physical actions are an outgrowth of our thoughts. Hence the sin starts with our very thoughts, and is expressed in our actions. Not nonsense at all.

So are you saying that the references to slaves, and the rules for how to treat them (not to free them of course) are just metaphorical? Are you saying that the instances of God guiding the Israelites in their conquests, including the slaughter of every male adult, child and animal, and the enslavement of their women and girls are just metaphors, or are they lies? Saying that this is God's judgment does not make it any less genocide, when the action is done not by God himself but by his people. That is EXACTLY what genocide is.

[Hokulele]

I would argue that is a good thing that his nature does not change, and that he is not capable of evil.


So there is some standard that is greater than your god which can define the evil your god isn't allowed to do.

Interesting theory.

[Piscivore]

There is no point claiming of something if you don't first of all have an agreed definition. Since you haven't provided one then no matter how much evidence you provide for what you think "selfishness" is, I won't be accepting it until we have an agreed definition for the term. So far nothing you've described matches my definition.
SELFISHNESS: The quality or state of being selfish; exclusive regard to one's own interest or happiness; that supreme self-love or self-preference which leads a person to direct his purposes to the advancement of his own interest, power, or happiness, without regarding those of others.

What do you call it when a person does something to advance someone else's interests, power or happiness only because it advances his own interests, power or happiness?

[Hokulele]

What do you call it when a person does something to advance someone else's interests, power or happiness only because it advances his own interests, power or happiness?


Employment.

[Monster Machine]

Yes, we did disobey God, and because of that we deserve eternal punishment.

No - Adam and Eve sinned. THEY deserved punishment, not me. God sure does hold a grudge, eh? Imagine, for a moment hamelekim, if you committed a crime and were sent to prison. And your son had to go to prison. And your grandson, and so on... seem fair? I realize I don't have the wisdom you do for it to make sense, but please try and explain why every generation since Adam and Eve have had to suffer for their mistake.

God could have destroyed Adam and Eve when they sinned, but he allowed it to continue so that he could show his glory and righteousness through the salvation of some and judgement of the rest.

Yes, we are all just god's little playthings for his twisted game.

The Bible is clear that we have a choice, free will, but that we will only make the right choice if God draws us to him. We never seek out God unless he calls us to him.

How does god call to the lost tribes in the amazon? They don't have his rule book. How would god show himself to them?

God didn't "make the rules" in regards to how he conducts himself. He is constrained by his very nature. He is just, righteous, fair, infinite, etc...

Yes, yes, yes.. He is just and righteous, fair and infinite when children die needlessly from starvation, abuse, etc... I realize you have to toe the party line and use the "it's all part of god's plan" line, but come on hamelekim - do you honestly believe someone who even allows his most devout followers to suffer through pain and agony is fair?

Yes, God used his own death for his own purposes to save anyone who would believe in him. But only those who God chooses to save believe in him.

Why some and not all?

Our actions are absolutely meaningful and they are going to be used to condemn each any every person who does not believe.

Yes, it's great to be pious, isn't it?

<snipped for repetitive preaching>




He is all powerful within his nature. But yes he is constrained. God cannot lie, he cannot be unjust, he cannot be unrighteous.

I would argue that is a good thing that his nature does not change, and that he is not capable of evil.

Odd that you would make that claim, knowing that god readily admitted he creates evil. Or do you just skip over that bit?


Monster

[willhaven]

I'm not sure that this selfisness you talk about *is* the "reason" people have faith.It's one of the reasons. Maybe not the only reason, but I can't really imagine many scenarios where getting into heaven is secondary to anything.


I can tell you, for myself, that it would be in ways, I suspect, more enjoyable, and I would be able to be *more* "selfish" were I to be able to convince myself to believe differently than I do. My beliefs aren't something I chose, necessarily.It would be easier to be selfish as an atheist if you felt you had zero accountability. But with Christianity, when you're doing the right thing, you may give up little behavioral things and you believe you are trading it for immortality. There is still self interest there.

That said, there were times during my march toward atheism where I almost wished that a god existed. I'd love to live forever and be happy, but I just don't think it exists. My behavior wouldn't change much if I were a Christian. It had essentially zero impact on my moral compass.



To be completely honest with you, I do not feel "at home" with many professed Christians. I do not feel a kinship or fellowship with them. I am uncomfortable in the fellowship halls with the tables of food when I know so many more are hungry, all for the sake of a "good time". I can not tell you why I am uncomfortable in that, just that I am. And I think that many Christians are.I was in the same place when I was a Christian. I was often made to feel like an outcast because I had long hair and listened to heavy metal. I once got a talking to from a pastor of one of the two churches that I attended about drug use. I had never and still have never done any illegal drugs in my life. Never smoked a cigarette. I only started drinking regularly last October.

Little things like that as well as differences in bible interpretation between the two churches made me question it all. I got to a point where my religion was for myself and no one else. Then I eventually came to the realization that god didn't seem to exist.

[willhaven]

There is no point claiming of something if you don't first of all have an agreed definition. Since you haven't provided one then no matter how much evidence you provide for what you think "selfishness" is, I won't be accepting it until we have an agreed definition for the term. So far nothing you've described matches my definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/selfish
–adjective
1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.
1.

Concerned chiefly or only with oneself: "Selfish men were . . . trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of human rights" (Maria Weston Chapman).
2.

Arising from, characterized by, or showing selfishness: a selfish whim.
selfish
1640, from self (q.v.). Said in Hacket's life of Archbishop Williams (1693) to have been coined by Presbyterians. In the 17c., synonyms included self-seeking (1628), self-ended and self-ful.Now THAT is ironic. :D

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish
1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

Now, Christianity does drive its followers to not follow selfish pursuits. But this is coincidental. Adherence to a selfless way of life in order to achieve a selfish goal.

[Piscivore]

Employment.

:D

[sugarb]

It's one of the reasons. Maybe not the only reason, but I can't really imagine many scenarios where getting into heaven is secondary to anything.


It would be easier to be selfish as an atheist if you felt you had zero accountability. But with Christianity, when you're doing the right thing, you may give up little behavioral things and you believe you are trading it for immortality. There is still self interest there.

That said, there were times during my march toward atheism where I almost wished that a god existed. I'd love to live forever and be happy, but I just don't think it exists. My behavior wouldn't change much if I were a Christian. It had essentially zero impact on my moral compass.


I was in the same place when I was a Christian. I was often made to feel like an outcast because I had long hair and listened to heavy metal. I once got a talking to from a pastor of one of the two churches that I attended about drug use. I had never and still have never done any illegal drugs in my life. Never smoked a cigarette. I only started drinking regularly last October.

Little things like that as well as differences in bible interpretation between the two churches made me question it all. I got to a point where my religion was for myself and no one else. Then I eventually came to the realization that god didn't seem to exist.


Hello again :) That's interesting to come to the conclusion first that your religion was for yourself and noone else, and then realize that God didn't exist. I think our faith (or lack thereof) is supposed to be entirely about us (as individuals). And indeed it is, unless we're talking about those who believe for some strange reason that they can "save" others. It is entirely about "us". Belief, non-belief, doing "good", doing "bad", praying, meditating, even thinking. It is, entirely, about "us". If that's what you mean by selfish, I think maybe you mean more "ego-centric" than "selfish", because I don't think those things are so much about "me/us", as they are about "me/us" fitting into the big picture...which for some strange reason all people are compelled to do, yes?

It appears as though you and I, and many others, go through the same types of belief struggles. I think that we just reach different conclusions, and a lot of it is probably about how we define "God". You see, to me, my conclusion upon giving up on "church" entirely was this: God, as I define God, is in everything and everyone. The good, the bad, the ugly. Not that God didn't exist (although I have been of that mindset a time or two also).

You know, lately I keep going back to when my mom was dying, and I can remember sitting by her bed many times, praying for her to get well again. I wasn't ready to lose her. I loved her. I didn't want her to die. I, I, I, me, me, me. For a while there, as she reached that stage just before the end where it appeared to be an improvement, I thought my prayers had been answered. And then I realized something: IF God was answering my prayers, then He was also prolonging her misery, because there was no "recovery" to be had for her.

But you see, while I can say that in one way that was selfishness on my part, it had nothing to do with me going to heaven or not. Do I believe in an afterlife? Sure. Do I believe in heaven and hell? Hmmm...notsomuch. Anyway, those actions, prayers, weren't based on "me, me, pick me!" so much as they were based on fear. Fear of losing someone I loved. Fear of life without one of the anchors. So they weren't selfISH, necessarily, but they also were not selfLESS.

I dunno. At this point in my life, while I do believe in Christ very much, mostly I guess you might say I believe that the Spirit of Christ is a lot like other things we do in certain spirits. The spirit of love, the spirit of generosity, the spirit of giving, the spirit of compassion...you know? For me, personally, I don't see heaven as my "reward", because to see that as a reward means that I am pleased that I got to go somewhere where other people I love, or care about, or don't know but love anyway, can't go! My own belief, really, is that we all move on, to whatever comes next. Maybe we're just particles floating around, whispering things in the ears of people left behind us. Maybe we become a nagging conscience. Maybe we get to be the little devils or angels on the shoulders. Maybe we become fish in the ocean. Who the hell knows? But I believe that we all move on to that, that we are all "immortal" (even if that means just living on in the memories of others), and though I joke about Heaven being dogs and beer, what my one true hope is, really, is to become part of those beautiful pictures I see taken from Hubble or one of the bubbles in the ocean...just a small part of something much bigger than me. Which is odd because...that's what I already am.

I don't know why people want to think that they're special enough to go to Heaven and their kids aren't. I don't know why people want to sit around and say "If only he'd done this, he could be in Heaven now instead of burning in Hell", or whatever it is people say. That's ghastly.

But, ya know? You kind of nailed it. My faith is about me, so I don't have to believe those things. My God doesn't have to be like their God, and you don't have to have a God if you don't want one and won't we just have a grand old time if we do all get to meet up again, seeing the faces of those who thought they were so much better than everyone else. I mean, come on. God HAS to have a sense of humor. Especially if we're made in His image, because we're some of the funniest things I've ever seen!

And for me? That's better than believing that God doesn't exist, because if God didn't exist, for me, that would mean those wonderful silences I sometimes experience, the peace that sometimes washes over me, the joy that fills me over-full sometimes? Wouldn't mean as much. The tears I cry for others, for my own, pain and joy and relief? Wouldn't mean as much. For ME. Because I need to believe. I admit it. I need to believe that there is something...something that binds us together in ways that words cannot describe. I need to believe that. Not because I want to go to Heaven, but because...if I can't believe that, then I have to accept that this entire existence is a miserable trapping in a body that can't do half the things I feel an urge to have it do, like fly through the air by its own ability or swim the deepest oceans without having to come up for air. And okay, maybe it IS selfish, but...not because I'm trying to get to heaven. Just the opposite, really. It is because I want to find heaven here.

[sphenisc]

What do you call it when a person does something to advance someone else's interests, power or happiness only because it advances his own interests, power or happiness?

Something which coincidentally advances someone else's interests?

I don't have a single word for the concept - it combines ideas about the result of an action with ideas about the motivation for the action. In a biological context I might think about calling it "symbiosis", in a political context "the trickle-down effect", and in a religious context "the parable of the Canaanite woman" (Matthew 15:27).

I tried "Macchiavellian", "unscrupulous" and "immoral" but they're all too loose in definition to match your phrase.

On second thoughts, Indirect_self-interest is closest.

[Piscivore]

Something which coincidentally advances someone else's interests?

I don't have a single word for the concept - it combines ideas about the result of an action with ideas about the motivation for the action.
Is there some reason besides making value judgements about certain kinds of thinking that making such distinctions regarding motivations is necessary?

[sphenisc]

Is there some reason besides making value judgements about certain kinds of thinking that making such distinctions regarding motivations is necessary?

Hmmm, I suppose predictability. If you want to be able to predict what actions someone will take then being able to describe their motivations might be useful; independent of what value you place on the action. Is that what you meant?

[Piscivore]

Hmmm, I suppose predictability. If you want to be able to predict what actions someone will take then being able to describe their motivations might be useful; independent of what value you place on the action. Is that what you meant?

Yes, thanks.

[willhaven]

You know, lately I keep going back to when my mom was dying, and I can remember sitting by her bed many times, praying for her to get well again. I wasn't ready to lose her. I loved her. I didn't want her to die. I, I, I, me, me, me. For a while there, as she reached that stage just before the end where it appeared to be an improvement, I thought my prayers had been answered. And then I realized something: IF God was answering my prayers, then He was also prolonging her misery, because there was no "recovery" to be had for her.

But you see, while I can say that in one way that was selfishness on my part, it had nothing to do with me going to heaven or not. Do I believe in an afterlife? Sure. Do I believe in heaven and hell? Hmmm...notsomuch. Anyway, those actions, prayers, weren't based on "me, me, pick me!" so much as they were based on fear. Fear of losing someone I loved. Fear of life without one of the anchors. So they weren't selfISH, necessarily, but they also were not selfLESS.That's a good point. Selfish may be too strong a term. Self interest or ego-centric may be better terms.

Christianity typically drives believers to be selfless, but with an ego-centric goal at the end of the road. It's a bit of a strange contradiction.


But, ya know? You kind of nailed it. My faith is about me, so I don't have to believe those things. My God doesn't have to be like their God, and you don't have to have a God if you don't want one and won't we just have a grand old time if we do all get to meet up again, seeing the faces of those who thought they were so much better than everyone else. I mean, come on. God HAS to have a sense of humor. Especially if we're made in His image, because we're some of the funniest things I've ever seen!

And for me? That's better than believing that God doesn't exist, because if God didn't exist, for me, that would mean those wonderful silences I sometimes experience, the peace that sometimes washes over me, the joy that fills me over-full sometimes? Wouldn't mean as much. The tears I cry for others, for my own, pain and joy and relief? Wouldn't mean as much. For ME. Because I need to believe. I admit it. I need to believe that there is something...something that binds us together in ways that words cannot describe. I need to believe that. Not because I want to go to Heaven, but because...if I can't believe that, then I have to accept that this entire existence is a miserable trapping in a body that can't do half the things I feel an urge to have it do, like fly through the air by its own ability or swim the deepest oceans without having to come up for air. And okay, maybe it IS selfish, but...not because I'm trying to get to heaven. Just the opposite, really. It is because I want to find heaven here.My girl has a similar outlook. She grew up Catholic and doesn't really directly believe in god anymore, but she honestly thinks there is something else there. The only time I ever hear anything about it is when we have philosophical discussions.

I was in a very similar place about eight years ago.

[sugarb]

That's a good point. Selfish may be too strong a term. Self interest or ego-centric may be better terms.

Christianity typically drives believers to be selfless, but with an ego-centric goal at the end of the road. It's a bit of a strange contradiction.


My girl has a similar outlook. She grew up Catholic and doesn't really directly believe in god anymore, but she honestly thinks there is something else there. The only time I ever hear anything about it is when we have philosophical discussions.

I was in a very similar place about eight years ago.


Good evening, Willhaven. It is a strange contradiction, for those with that goal in mind.

Thank you for sharing about your girl, too. It is interesting, to me, to know that other couples can have such differing views and still manage to co-exist, given the great divide religion produces in our society. I agree with your girl. There is something else there.

That is why, I think, my faith ultimately leads me to such a curiosity with science. Something made this. Something caused this. Something...and every generation seems to get closer and closer to those answers. I doubt that we ever have a solid answer, but the journey is so amazing.

One thing about organized religion that was stifling to me was the idea that we are never to question. I never understood how one could seek God and not question, and in fact, in Scriptures, the reason I find Jesus such a fascinating character is because of how he uses words to promote thoughts, and really, the rejection of Christ was the rejection of thought.

Ego-centric is perhaps the word we're looking for, and in that, I agree with you and cannot argue much with it. Although I think religion is just one way in which people ego-centrically (is that a word?) search for their purpose or meaning. I don't think anyone likes to believe that "we're just here, and then we're gone, no meaning to it all". First, in that attitude, I think we're lying to ourselves, because while not everything we do has meaning, certainly, our lives most certainly *do* have meaning to at least some other lives. In my most depressed states, at times in thoughts of ending it all, even then I could realize that the choice I was looking at would have an effect on people I loved very much, and ultimately, that "saved" me, so to speak. But what if I hadn't felt that? What if I hadn't known that? THERE, I think, is where we perhaps get into selfish-natured thinking. Having no regard for the consequences our actions have on others.

[kurious_kathy]

as we all will. but you didn't actually answer my question. You said a variety of "I believe. I DO I DO I DO!!" Statements. Almost like it was a shield against considering the question I asked.

You are the one who invoked Pascal's Wager. You made the suggestion that I could (or atheists) could be wrong. Well, that question is a multilane road. It could be that the Muslims were right, or the Hindus, or the Shintos, or the Pagans, or the Mormons, or Christians, or NONE of them. The pure fact is NO ONE KNOWS.

Consider that the next time you try to use the "what if you are wrong" gambit. Unless you are willing to consider it truthfully and it's ramifications, the question is only an exercise in hypocrisy.
The question, "What if your wrong is a legitimate question?" If you really sat down to ponder it maybe you would realize you can't afford not to believe because the stakes are too high!

[bruto]

The question, "What if your wrong is a legitimate question?" If you really sat down to ponder it maybe you would realize you can't afford not to believe because the stakes are too high!So to be safe, I should, of course, look around and find the religion with the most punitive and hateful god, since it's clear that the stakes for not believing in that one are highest. Much energy has been spent trying to explain why Pascal's wager is a poor one, and why it only works when it is front loaded, as it was in Pascal's own case, by the prior assumption that there is only one true religion to choose, but the end result is that it is a sorry, shallow and deeply flawed reason to choose faith even then. It is hypocritical and insincere. Pascal's wager is not choosing faith, it's plea bargaining over hell, and it is exactly the kind of selfish and pathetic bargain that Parky and Willhaven are criticizing in this thread.

[Fishstick]

The question, "What if your wrong is a legitimate question?" If you really sat down to ponder it maybe you would realize you can't afford not to believe because the stakes are too high!

Pascal's wager? Really?

Edit: What if all christians are wrong and all you're doing is pissing god off even more!

[Pure_Argent]

The question, "What if your wrong is a legitimate question?" If you really sat down to ponder it maybe you would realize you can't afford not to believe because the stakes are too high!

Oh look. KK doesn't understand the argument put forth, so she resorts to repeating herself.

Never seen that before.

kurious_kathy, all you are doing is repeating Pascal's Wager, which is, as joobz so kindly explained to you, is a load of bull****. Do you have anything meaningful to say, or can we ignore you?

[Cleon]

The question, "What if your wrong is a legitimate question?" If you really sat down to ponder it maybe you would realize you can't afford not to believe because the stakes are too high!

*sigh* You're really going with this, are you?

The problem, kathy, is that it's not binary - the world is not divided into fundamentalist Christianity and atheism. There are countless Christian sects, to say nothing of non-Christian religions, many (if not most) of which say that if you don't follow their specific religion, you're going to Hell just as much as any atheist. For example, fundamentalist Protestants regard Catholics as Hell-bound followers of the Whore of Babylon. Mormons think similarly of non-LDS Christians. And let's not even talk about Islam.

So "what if you're wrong" applies just as equally to all of these faiths - including yours. What if you're wrong, and the True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days is the one true religion?

I know, I know, you're going to say something like you prayed, or God told you, etc. etc. But still...What if you're wrong?

[bruto]

Pascal's wager? Really?

Edit: What if all christians are wrong and all you're doing is pissing god off even more!Yes indeed, that is why I am starting my own church. The Church of bruto promises that if you do not do exactly as I say, and (oh dear, there are some forum rules that prevent my detailing what my acolytes will be required to do, but I promise no animals will be harmed....very much)...anyway, in my church everyone will go straight to hell and burn twice as hot for twice as many eternities as nonbelievers from any other church. I plan to be not only an angry, peevish, jealous and punitive god, but a gratuitously mean and perverted one as well. Pascal's wager puts the price of nonbelief so high here that it hardly matters what you might actually think is true, does it? Oh by the way, you will also have to wear a funny hat, but that certainly beats an eternity in hell. ANYTHING beats an eternity in hell. Remember, that while my minions are [sorry, can't use the words here] you with a red hot file and [sorry, it's too horrible to say] you , your children and your pets, not only will you be suffering, but you'll be sitting next to Kurious Kathy, and if you think she's insufferable now, just wait until she gets to hell.

Kurious Kathy, do you realize from the above, how your own wager is loaded? Of course, obviously (I surely hope at least), you're not going to join the church of bruto, because it is preposterously stupid and you cannot believe in it. The wager works only if you are already prepared to believe!

[joobz]

The question, "What if your wrong is a legitimate question?" If you really sat down to ponder it maybe you would realize you can't afford not to believe because the stakes are too high!
EXACTLY! You'e completely convinced me.
Kurious_Kathy, it is too much of a risk to not believe.
So when will you convert to Islam, the one true faith?

[Elizabeth I]

The question, "What if your wrong is a legitimate question?" If you really sat down to ponder it maybe you would realize you can't afford not to believe because the stakes are too high!

Aside from all the other logical objections that have already been pointed out to you, this doesn't work for many people here because they don't think your "stakes" actually exist.!

If you don't believe in Hell, Hell can't scare you.

p.s. Your God has, according you to, already broken one promise - the one He made to the Jews. How do you know He won't break His promise to you?

[bruto]

Aside from all the other logical objections that have already been pointed out to you, this doesn't work for many people here because they don't think your "stakes" actually exist.!

If you don't believe in Hell, Hell can't scare you.

p.s. Your God has, according you to, already broken one promise - the one He made to the Jews. How do you know He won't break His promise to you?This is the point I've been trying to argue here from the start against both sides. The idea that you might find faith itself as a result of fearing hell requires faith to start. Hell is a religious doctrine. If you have no religious beliefs, hell is no threat. It may be useful to make you adhere to additional doctrine and behave yourself, but if it's enough to induce faith then either you had faith already or your grasp of what faith really is is shallow and insincere. I have never known a person of serious and sincere faith who gave the fear of hell more than a nodding acknowledgment, and at least some who, if presented with a threat of hell if they abandoned their beliefs would accept it, as many over the centuries have accepted martyrdom, excommunication and scorn, as the price for what they truly believe is right. I believe that the premise of this thread is wrong about faith, but judging from the woefully inadequate responses from the defense, I'm afraid it's righter than I thought about the faithful!

[Foster Zygote]

EXACTLY! You'e completely convinced me.
Kurious_Kathy, it is too much of a risk to not believe.
So when will you convert to Islam, the one true faith?

Islam? Pfft! Can you really afford not to kiss Hank's ass?

[AdinDraco]

Minor point, but Pascal's Wager also assumes that you can choose what you believe in. By most definitions of belief, this is impossible.

[kurious_kathy]

Yes indeed, that is why I am starting my own church. The Church of bruto promises that if you do not do exactly as I say, and (oh dear, there are some forum rules that prevent my detailing what my acolytes will be required to do, but I promise no animals will be harmed....very much)...anyway, in my church everyone will go straight to hell and burn twice as hot for twice as many eternities as nonbelievers from any other church. I plan to be not only an angry, peevish, jealous and punitive god, but a gratuitously mean and perverted one as well. Pascal's wager puts the price of nonbelief so high here that it hardly matters what you might actually think is true, does it? Oh by the way, you will also have to wear a funny hat, but that certainly beats an eternity in hell. ANYTHING beats an eternity in hell. Remember, that while my minions are [sorry, can't use the words here] you with a red hot file and [sorry, it's too horrible to say] you , your children and your pets, not only will you be suffering, but you'll be sitting next to Kurious Kathy, and if you think she's insufferable now, just wait until she gets to hell.

Kurious Kathy, do you realize from the above, how your own wager is loaded? Of course, obviously (I surely hope at least), you're not going to join the church of bruto, because it is preposterously stupid and you cannot believe in it. The wager works only if you are already prepared to believe!

What do you mean my wager is loaded? I just made a strong assertion that nobody really can afford to get Jesus wrong, NOBODY!

And for your info I got saved right here at home, not at church. We can read a Bible anywhere, but I go to church now to honor God and hopefully help build up the body of other believers!

[RoboTimbo]

What do you mean my wager is loaded? I just made a strong assertion that nobody really can afford to get Jesus wrong, NOBODY!

And for your info I got saved right here at home, not at church. We can read a Bible anywhere, but I go to church now to honor God and hopefully help build up the body of other believers!

You are deliberately missing the point. What if your brand of religion is wrong and another one is the correct one?

Can you afford to get it wrong?

[Pure_Argent]

What do you mean my wager is loaded? I just made a strong assertion that nobody really can afford to get Jesus wrong, NOBODY!

And for your info I got saved right here at home, not at church. We can read a Bible anywhere, but I go to church now to honor God and hopefully help build up the body of other believers!

This

uphold this

Oh look. KK doesn't understand the argument put forth, so she resorts to repeating herself.

Never seen that before.

[pakeha]

What do you mean my wager is loaded? I just made a strong assertion that nobody really can afford to get Jesus wrong, NOBODY!

And for your info I got saved right here at home, not at church. We can read a Bible anywhere, but I go to church now to honor God and hopefully help build up the body of other believers!

hi, kurious_kathy
Here's that Pascal's wager
Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.
Blaise Pascal


from
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/blaisepasc159845.html

[bruto]

What do you mean my wager is loaded? I just made a strong assertion that nobody really can afford to get Jesus wrong, NOBODY!

And for your info I got saved right here at home, not at church. We can read a Bible anywhere, but I go to church now to honor God and hopefully help build up the body of other believers!Well, I might as well bang my head against this wall one more time. Your wager is loaded because there are many many religions, all of which claim to be the true one. If you were to take Pascal's wager as Pascal perceived it, for example, you'd find you're already hell bound, because Pascal, in his day, presumed that the only alternative to unbelief was full participation in the Roman Catholic Church. If you are not a Roman Catholic, and the Catholics are right, you lose the wager and go to hell. If you are not a Muslim, and the Muslims are right, you lose the wager and go to hell. And so forth. The odds that Pascal considered to favor faith only work if you presume that there is only one true religion to choose, and if you already have decided it is true! If you choose the religion you're going to wager on before you start, the wager is loaded, because you've actually already performed an act of faith in determining which religion is true. This is not rocket science, Kathy. Even if you're right in your choice of religion, your faith is not based on an honest wager. If it is, you're a fool, and your faith a sham.

[joobz]

What do you mean my wager is loaded? I just made a strong assertion that nobody really can afford to get Jesus wrong, NOBODY!

And for your info I got saved right here at home, not at church. We can read a Bible anywhere, but I go to church now to honor God and hopefully help build up the body of other believers!
Unless you are willing to consider the idea that YOUR religion is wrong and consider what the risk would be if ANY other Religion is true, You are being a hypocrite.

You ask us to consider the ramifications would be if Christianity was true, but why should we consider Christianity true and not any other countless number of religions?

[Foster Zygote]

What do you mean my wager is loaded?

It's loaded because you assume only two options. But there are literally thousands of options to choose from.