Ungrateful Christians [Archive]

Christian

9th August 2003, 10:56 AM

Yahzi:

I like your style mainly because I understand where it is coming from. I hope you can appreciate that my responses will be followin your "game plan". I hope you know what I mean.

Yahzi wrote:
if you celebrate this life, this magnificent life that God has given us, this incredible world that shouldn't even be here, if you celebrate every day here as a gift of incomparable generosity... you're a humanist.

Not necessarily. How one views the world, says more about the viewer than what is being viewed. The glass is half-something. What kind depends on the viewer.

Because Christians don't do that. The Christians can barely wait to get out of here, and all they do is talk trash about how much life sucks and how much better the next place is.

This is a strawman and it also a false dichotomy.

Does anyone else find it odd that Christians simoultaneously argue that the Earth was created by a perfect god, and that it sucks so bad they need a better one somewhere else?

You are missing a basic concept here. Answer this, how do you know "nothing" exists (is)?

I mean, if God was so generous in giving us a life in the first place, where do these people get off expecting a second one?

How do you know something is big or small? How do you know this is a wonderful world if it is the only one. You can say it is wonderful, but your comment is meaningless if there is no reference.

More to the point: why is a second one necessary?

Because there is no "nothing" without "something"

Why aren't people happy to have a life in the first place - why do they insist on having a second, infinite one after this one before they can be happy?

Aside from the previous point, why do people want to get a degree, a better home, a better car? Why can't humans just stay in caves and be happy?

If one life won't make them happy, what makes them think two will?

Maslow has some answers.

Dancing David

9th August 2003, 11:19 AM

Yahzi,
I stand in awe, truth, humor and profundity all in one!

Suddenly

9th August 2003, 11:37 AM

This thread is mainly a huge strawman. Perhaps this board gives a distorted view of Christianity. There are those that this thread speaks to, of course, but there are others for whom this sort of thing is simply an example of athiest arrogance.

We get perplexed when Billiefan says all athiests are sad, and then we get a post like this saying all Christians are nothing but whiney mopes pining for an afterlife. This is no better than what Billiefan does.

When I was a Christian the afterlife wasn't something I gave much thought to. To be sure my church was very, very liberal. That doesn't mean I wasn't a Christian though. I believed in God, the resurrection and all that jazz. I tried to live up to the "ideals" of Christ, such as generosity, humbleness, and kindness.

I didn't hate gays or tell Jews they were going to burn, or not think Pat Robertson was an idiot. In fact, the only thing that has really changed is my rejection of the supernatural aspects, which as I said before, never really informed my choices anyway. I made these moral choices as they improved the quality of this life, not future ones. Christianity for many makes their lives happier, not sadder, and the concept of the afterlife seems more a function of fear of the unknown than disatisfaction with life for the majority of Christians I have known.

Checkmite

9th August 2003, 11:39 AM

Not to be nitpicky or anything...

...but the relevant religious text indicates that God offered the second, better and longer life all by Himself, as a reward for the good people. Nobody really demanded anything...

Yahzi

9th August 2003, 12:43 PM

Christian
I like your style mainly because I understand where it is coming from. I hope you can appreciate that my responses will be followin your "game plan". I hope you know what I mean.
I take that to mean we won't get bogged down in onerous details like trying define what the word "three" means. I concur.

How one views the world, says more about the viewer than what is being viewed. The glass is half-something. What kind depends on the viewer.
While this is true, I wasn't actually talking about any specific Christian. I was really discussing Christian theology, and what it's view said about itself. While the vast majority of human beings pretty much enjoy life when they can (regardless of their religious allegiance), Christian theology constantly derides life on Earth. In fact, life on Earth is a punishment inflicted on man, as is made clear when God throws Adam out of Eden.

You are missing a basic concept here. Answer this, how do you know "nothing" exists (is)?
Still missing it. I found this sentence very mystifying. I have no idea what you mean, or where you are going with it. You seem to be implying that the current universe exists by default, and that a second transcendental one and nothing at all are two possible changes from the current, default, always existing universe. This is directly contradicted by the Bible, wherein God says he made this place out of nothing.

How do you know this is a wonderful world if it is the only one.
But the mere fact that it is at all makes it wonderful. Nothingness is objectively boring: you don't need a reference to know that nohting is not exciting. Compared to the reference of nothing, anything at all is amazing, and the world we live in is pretty clearly an amazing job of organized complexity. Proof of that is that we still haven't worked out how all the tricks are done. If it takes you more than 2500 years of inquiry to figure out all the tricks in the magician's show, then I think everybody agrees that show is pretty full of wonder.

Aside from the previous point, why do people want to get a degree, a better home, a better car?
This seems like a valid objection, but really it isn't. The psychological need we all have to improve our lot in life is a basic drive. It's function is to make sure we survive, since if we had no drive at all, we'd lay on the beach and starve to death.

But religion is supposed to be about something more than base desires. It is supposed to be about reflected desires, and plenty of people today make choices that show that merely acquring wealth is not the best way to be happy. In the same way, you would expect religion to acknowledge that merely extending life is not automatically going to lead to happiness.

Now the correct interpretation (as I understand it) is that Heaven is merely living in the face of God. Our reward is a life where we are not cut off from God, where we live in His direct presence. But the problem with this view is that God curses man to live in the dirt when he throws us out of Eden; which implies that when we return to Eden we won't have to work, get sick, etc. So we are back to Christian theology complaining about life on Earth, and how it shouldn't be this way, and how we wouldn't have to work if only Adam had a clue. Surely you see how all of this is incompatible with the humanist vision of living every day to its fullest, for its own sake. Surely you see how this surly patience is not the same thing as celebrating wonderful life for its own sake.

Maslow has some answers.
But Maslow tells us about the animal human. What we want to know about is the theological human, the thinking human. We are less concerned here with what people want than with what they want to want.

Suddenly
we get a post like this saying all Christians are nothing but whiney mopes pining for an afterlife
Hopefully my clarification solves this. I am not discussing any particular Christians: rather, I am discussing Christianity in the abstract. In other words, when I say Christian, I really mean Christian theology. But since I am discussing it in anthromorphic terms, it's just easier to say Christian.

Joshua Korosi
Nobody really demanded anything
That is a good point. If you consider Christian theology to be made up by people (as I do), then it is obviously a demand. But if we consider it from their perspective, they are carefull never to take the tone of demand. Since we are talking about the psychology that would lead people to creating this particular version of the supernatural, I'll stand by my original comment.

My goal is to show that Christian theology is not humble and grateful to God like it claims, but rather that it masks a rebellion against the natural order and a demand that the world be a better place. Since it grows out of Judeaism (which is often concerned with making life on earth better), this is not a surprising attribute. However, it does reek of failure: it's almost as if the Christians gave up on making Earth worth living in and console themselves with promises of a better place next time. You can see what I mean by looking at the Jehovah's Witnesses.

All that submission to God's will is supposed to be a magical formula that makes God let us back into Eden, as opposed to a sensible program of "lets make the best out of what we have." But when you put it like that, how many Christians are going to agree?

Suddenly

9th August 2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
Christian

Suddenly

Hopefully my clarification solves this. I am not discussing any particular Christians: rather, I am discussing Christianity in the abstract. In other words, when I say Christian, I really mean Christian theology. But since I am discussing it in anthromorphic terms, it's just easier to say Christian.

There is no "Christian theology" per se. Find 20 different Christians and get 20 different answers. Most Christians are in fact trying to make the best of what they have. You are confusing a vocal unreasonable minority for a majority. I'ts not so much "we are ungrateful, give us more" as much as it is a coping mechanism for disappointment that humans are mortal. "We'll get 'em next time" on a cosmic scale.

That's just a passing concern with your argument. It seems that your objection is that Christians are offensive to their own God. This is like using scientific principles to rationalize a distrust of science. Once we get past an objection to individual behaviour, as you seem to be indicating you are talking about concepts (Christian theology), what is your point? According to that theology God gave the humans a break when he croaked his own son, and that they could have eternal life if they behaved themselves. Calling this "ungrateful" is simply bizzare. Ungrateful to who? You say that
Christian theology is not humble and grateful to God like it claims, but rather that it masks a rebellion against the natural order and a demand that the world be a better place.

What natural order? What are you talking about? The only way it makes any sense that Christians are not grateful to God is from a perspective that God exists, and that people made up Christianity to piss him off. This is what I mentioned above, using irrational beliefs or concepts to attack an irrational concept. Might as well say Christianity is bad because Cthulhu says so.

The second part of this passage is equally troublesome. I could say that the automobile is a "rebellion against the natural order of things" in that people in nature walked. This in itself does not make it a bad thing I'd hope. Yes, Christianity was most likely a mechinism to turn the tables on the rich and powerful by putting in a morality where poverty was a virtue. So what? Isn't it in the nature of man to improve his enviroment at the expense of what was "the natural order?"

Roadtoad

9th August 2003, 04:54 PM

Yahzi, that was brilliant! I absolutely loved that! You hit it on the head!

Damn, that's at least worth a nomination to Mercutio...!

Christian

9th August 2003, 06:37 PM

Yazhi wrote:
While this is true, I wasn't actually talking about any specific Christian. I was really discussing Christian theology, and what it's view said about itself. While the vast majority of human beings pretty much enjoy life when they can (regardless of their religious allegiance), Christian theology constantly derides life on Earth. In fact, life on Earth is a punishment inflicted on man, as is made clear when God throws Adam out of Eden.

No, this does not fully explain it. Your interpretation is incomplete. Maybe an example can clarify why PERSPECTIVE is so important.

Would you say Queen Elizabeth had a wonderful life compared to the average peasant of her time? You probably would agree with me she did.

But I have no doubt that my life is infinitely better than hers. She never saw the wonders of airplanes that could get you 1000’s of miles away in hours. She never experience the magic of talking to people all over the world through computers. Hey, she never experienced movies and surround sound.

To her, her life was magnificent, she was the Queen of England. But, her life compared to mine is totally lacking.

So, life on Earth compared to Heaven will always be lacking, no matter how wonderful this life is. And I hope you can agree with me that both conceptions are not mutually exclusive.

Still missing it. I found this sentence very mystifying. I have no idea what you mean, or where you are going with it. You seem to be implying that the current universe exists by default, and that a second transcendental one and nothing at all are two possible changes from the current, default, always existing universe. This is directly contradicted by the Bible, wherein God says he made this place out of nothing.

I’m glad you bring this up, and I’m sorry not to be more clear. Yes, the Bible and Science are in total agreement that before the universe there was nothing.

What I meant is that the concept of NOTHING is indispensable to understanding ANYTHING or SOMETHING. And more importantly, it is fundamental in our ability to appreciate what is wonderful.

The point is that, without this (our world) reference, we would not appreciate how wonderful Heaven is.

But the mere fact that it is at all makes it wonderful.

Or for precisely this reason, the contrary is true. How does your humanism help the people of Liberia or Somalia. Is that a wonderful life? Most people throughout history and today, have not lived wonderful lives, if we compare them to our standards.

Nothingness is objectively boring: you don't need a reference to know that nohting is not exciting.

Most physicist would not agree with you. Most artistic people would certainly not agree with you. A silence in a dialogue, a pause in a piece of music, a black hole, is to many very exciting. The number ZERO revolutionized mathematics, and that is literally NOTHING. Yet, it is one of the most powerful and exciting concepts in mathematics.
Compared to the reference of nothing, anything at all is amazing,

And you seem to miss the point that without nothing, nothing would be amazing. To our point. Without this would, Heaven would not be amazing.

and the world we live in is pretty clearly an amazing job of organized complexity. Proof of that is that we still haven't worked out how all the tricks are done. If it takes you more than 2500 years of inquiry to figure out all the tricks in the magician's show, then I think everybody agrees that show is pretty full of wonder.

And I can still agree with this statement.

This seems like a valid objection, but really it isn't. The psychological need we all have to improve our lot in life is a basic drive. It's function is to make sure we survive, since if we had no drive at all, we'd lay on the beach and starve to death.

Oh, but we are doing way more than just merely surviving, our civilization is striving for a Heaven on Earth where people want to work less and live longer (even eternally) with as many luxuries as can be. And there is nothing wrong with that. This is why we drive cars and some live off passive income and do not work.

But religion is supposed to be about something more than base desires. It is supposed to be about reflected desires, and plenty of people today make choices that show that merely acquring wealth is not the best way to be happy. In the same way, you would expect religion to acknowledge that merely extending life is not automatically going to lead to happiness.

What are reflected desires? And Christianity is not about merely extending life. It is about a qualitatively different kind of life.

Now the correct interpretation (as I understand it) is that Heaven is merely living in the face of God. Our reward is a life where we are not cut off from God, where we live in His direct presence.

The implications of this are huge. We can only understand the difference if we compare them to this world.

But the problem with this view is that God curses man to live in the dirt when he throws us out of Eden; which implies that when we return to Eden we won't have to work, get sick, etc. So we are back to Christian theology complaining about life on Earth, and how it shouldn't be this way, and how we wouldn't have to work if only Adam had a clue.

But this is a strawman. Christian theology does not teach this.

Surely you see how all of this is incompatible with the humanist vision of living every day to its fullest, for its own sake. Surely you see how this surly patience is not the same thing as celebrating wonderful life for its own sake.

But this is a naïve view of the life on earth. You have the luxury (we have) to say this world is wonderful. Most people in human history don’t think so. Try to persuade the starving people of African to live life to the fullest. Do you think the people who lived in the Dark Ages would buy the “for its own sake” philosophy?

But Maslow tells us about the animal human. What we want to know about is the theological human, the thinking human. We are less concerned here with what people want than with what they want to want.

You are missing the point, Maslow shows that most people have a hierarchy of needs. Humanism collapses because most people have it rotten in life.

But, if there is a Heaven, then, this life takes a different perspective. If this is all there is, it is sad, sad, world. And I can still say, without contradicting myself, that I as a Christian see life as a wonderful miracle.

American

9th August 2003, 08:56 PM

By the definition of universe, Heaven is a part of it.

Cosmologists have come up with "Theories of Everything" to somehow imply there's something bigger than the universe, but we're playing with definitions, and it's pointless.

If you want to go into details, then show us data, plots, graphs and all of that. There's no point arguing about fuzzy terms.

swstephe

9th August 2003, 09:47 PM

I thought the Christian theology, (I'll stick more along mainstream protestantism), is that the Earth and Universe is good, that the original sin was the bad, and that added the curse of death and difficult childbirth to the Earth. That Heaven was offerred to Man as a kind of ambiguous reward for relatively good behavior, belief and/or race, (Old Testament -- admit it). And anyway, most sects seem to imply that Heaven existed before the Earth was created. Christianity, Islam and Judaism all teach to give thanks for all natural providence.

Those who separate themselves from the natural world and benefit of the poor and needy of this world in preference for a future existence, preaching "rapture" rather than love and charity, are probably the ungrateful ones you are talking about.

Yahzi

10th August 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by swstephe
Those who separate themselves from the natural world...
LIke, for instance, Paul?

Yahzi

10th August 2003, 11:15 AM

Christian

The point is that, without this (our world) reference, we would not appreciate how wonderful Heaven is.
Describing life on Earth as created to be deliberately sucky so that we will appreciate life in Heaven is exactly the attitude I am talking about.

Or for precisely this reason, the contrary is true. How does your humanism help the people of Liberia or Somalia. Is that a wonderful life? Most people throughout history and today, have not lived wonderful lives, if we compare them to our standards.
But they have held wonderful lives compared to nothing at all. Which was my original reference point. Unlike certain members of a certain religion, I am not claiming this is the best of all posssible worlds. And how does your religion help the people of Liberia?

A silence in a dialogue...
You have described nothing in context with something. This is not at all what I originally said. If there were no other numbers, then zero would be boring, and you wouldn't need any reference point to establish that.

What are reflected desires?
Desires one has reflected upon. The difference between lust and love.

And Christianity is not about merely extending life. It is about a qualitatively different kind of life.
How does this not prove my point? God has given you life, where you had nothing, but you refuse to be happy with just that: you want a "qualitatively different kind of life." This one isn't good enough for you.

But this is a strawman. Christian theology does not teach this.
I cannot be held responsible for your personal theology. I can only comment on what the book says.

But this is a naïve view of the life on earth. You have the luxury (we have) to say this world is wonderful. Most people in human history don’t think so. Try to persuade the starving people of African to live life to the fullest. Do you think the people who lived in the Dark Ages would buy the “for its own sake” philosophy?
If given the choice between existance and non-existance, then most people throughout history would chose existance.

I never said that life was some kind of wonderful paradise. I never denied that nature works by tooth and claw, that pain is the primary motivater, that suffering is the natural state of man. I never said life was a country club. I said, that compared to nothingness, the universe was pretty amazing. I said, that compared to non-existance, existance was a pretty big gift, and that it seemed bizarre to use that gift to immediately demand a better one. I said that didn't seem terribly grateful.

What you miss is that I am not a Christian, and thus, I don't have a problem with not being grateful. I, as a humanist, can sieze the world by the throat and demand whatever I can get. But that is a humanist perspective: your desire for unrelenting progress is a humanist desire: it is incompatible with the notion that there is any personal entity that we should be grateful to.

Humanism collapses because most people have it rotten in life.
You are now introducing a political tangent to this discussion. I doubt that it can serve to advance the original topic. However, in keeping with the original topic, allow me to point out once again Christianity is relying on the suckiness of the empirical world to advance its cause.

But, if there is a Heaven, then, this life takes a different perspective. If this is all there is, it is sad, sad, world.
Again, you prove my point. You think the world sucks, and the only thing that can make that justifiable is that it's supposed to suck so we can properly enjoy heaven. This is exactly the attitude I was inveighing against. I do not expect you to change your attitude, of course: but can you at least recognize that it doesn't really equal gratitude for the miracle of Earthly life?

As I said in the beginning: this life is not enough for you. God's incomparable gift of existence is insufficient for you. You can't be happy unless God does more.

ceo_esq

10th August 2003, 07:39 PM

People who believe in an afterlife (Christians, for example) generally believe that the most important part of themselves is created immortal. At the same time, it is obvious to all that life does not continue forever in the form we know it on earth, because our bodies do not last. When a Christian combines that axiom with that observation, deductive reasoning leads him to conclude that life must persist in some other form after we've shuffled off this mortal coil (of course, it's not really "another" life, just the continuation of the same existence in a different context). So if, in all of this, there is a "demand" being placed on God, it must be located first in the expectation that the soul is immortal, not in the belief of an afterlife as such, which is merely a corollary.

The belief that the soul is immortal by nature, and thus survives severance from the body, was widespread among Greek philosophers (many of whom were not theists in any conventional sense). They viewed the soul as the fundamental principle of human volitional and intellectual activity, and they perceived in it a radical independence from matter in the context of such activity. This led them to view the soul as being able to exist per se separate from any material complement. Furthermore, as a spiritual principle, they thought the soul was not made up of parts into which it could be broken down. Thus they concluded that the soul, capable of existing by itself and not susceptible to dissolution or corruption, is intrinsically immortal.

Since, as I pointed out, the validity of your “ungrateful Christians” thesis must come down to whether belief in an immortal spiritual principle like the soul inherently places theological demands on God, then we ought to be able to speak of (for example) "ungrateful Plato". Yet this does not seem persuasive, as the religious cosmology (and I must use the term loosely) conceived by the Greek philosophers to whom I referred does not lend itself well to human demands of any sort on the divine.

I realize, of course, that although the aforementioned philosophical reasoning has been strongly incorporated into Christian metaphysics, the Christian hope for immortality and an afterlife rests first and foremost on revelation. This is where I think Joshua Korosi put his finger on one of the chief problems with your criticism of "ungrateful Christians". Christians believe that the immortality of the soul and the prospect of an afterlife have been revealed to them as part of a divinely created order - and one in which existence is very strongly characterized as an unmerited grace, from what I understand. Your vague speculation in response that there must be latent psychological demands that would lead someone to create (or adhere to) such a theology does not seem especially effective as a critique of the theology itself, which on the face of it does not fit the description you give.

Inexplicably and apparently arbitrarily, your query as to how God could hate atheists (I detect the scent of straw there, but that’s another discussion) when atheists appreciate what he's done for them in their earthly life, presupposes simultaneously the validity of one Christian proposition (God exists) and the invalidity of another (God freely and intentionally created us to be immortal, and wants us to be mindful of the same). I think this is the same incoherence that Suddenly identified, if I read him correctly.

I realize that you were being somewhat tongue-in-cheek all along, but sometimes I can’t tell when you actually mean for such things to be taken seriously.

Finally, Yahzi, I am a little confused by your references to humanism (http://www.bartleby.com/65/hu/humanism.html), particularly when you said to Christian that "your desire for unrelenting progress is a humanist desire: it is incompatible with the notion that there is any personal entity that we should be grateful to." Considering that humanism was fundamentally a Catholic intellectual movement, your reckoning that it is incompatible with theism makes no sense to me.

Yahzi

11th August 2003, 01:28 PM

ceo_esq
Thus they concluded that the soul, capable of existing by itself and not susceptible to dissolution or corruption, is intrinsically immortal.
But they did not expect the next world to be better than this one. Hades was a place so boring the souls all drank from the river Lethe so they could forget they had ever been alive. Surely you can grasp how this is utterly unlike the Christian version of the afterlife, where things are not only better, but perfect. The Greeks never assumed that the Universe owed them a living, not in this life or the next: the Christians assumed that being dead was an improvement on being alive.

Yet this does not seem persuasive, as the religious cosmology (and I must use the term loosely) conceived by the Greek philosophers to whom I referred does not lend itself well to human demands of any sort on the divine.
Exactly. You have just refuted your own argument, and quite elegantly, I might add. The mere belief in an immortal soul does not automatically lead to belief in a perfect afterlife, as the Greek expierence shows. The belief in a perfect afterlife is a Christian addition.

Christians believe that the immortality of the soul and the prospect of an afterlife have been revealed to them as part of a divinely created order - and one in which existence is very strongly characterized as an unmerited grace, from what I understand.
The question of why anybody would find such a revelation compelling is still valid. Given that there is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever for this proposition, evaluting it on strictly logical merits is not completely unwarranted. Admittedly, any particular state of affairs could be revealed to be the case: but in the absence of evidence, why would you find one to be compelling unless it reflected some pre-existing conceptions? In any case, I less concerned about why people believe it than I am about what the attitude of Christian theology says about itself.

Inexplicably and apparently arbitrarily, your query as to how God could hate atheists (I detect the scent of straw there, but that’s another discussion) when atheists appreciate what he's done for them in their earthly life, presupposes simultaneously the validity of one Christian proposition (God exists) and the invalidity of another (God freely and intentionally created us to be immortal, and wants us to be mindful of the same).
Again, this fails on the very logic you already introduced. Merely because God made us immortal does not entail that God also promised the afterlife would be perfect. God gave us Earthly life, and it's far from perfect. What in the theory of the immortality of the soul supports the notion that the next life is perfect? Nothing, as you have already shown.

The question is of gratitude. The humanist celebrates life and lives it to the fullest, concentrating on what has been given to him, and declares it enough to be happy with. If there is no afterlife, the humanist is still satistified with what we had. The Christian is exhorted to not concentrate on the Earthly world. Christian theology describes Earth as a place of punishment, an expulsion from Paradise, a place of testing, an ordeal that must be gotten through before we can return to our rightful place in Paradise, and Christians say things like, "if this is all there is then it is a sad, sad, world." Surely you can see how different an attitude this is.

Considering that humanism was fundamentally a Catholic intellectual movement, your reckoning that it is incompatible with theism makes no sense to me.
I did not say it was incompatible with theism. I said it was incompatible with Christianity. The Catholics have spawned any number of intellectual movements which they later realized were utterly incompatible with Catholic ideology (Arianism, anyone?). Even Protestantism was arguably originally a Catholic intellectual movement (after all, Luther did not want to split the church, but merely reform it). Your objection is, at best, confused.

LCBOY

11th August 2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
This thread is mainly a huge strawman. Perhaps this board gives a distorted view of Christianity. There are those that this thread speaks to, of course, but there are others for whom this sort of thing is simply an example of athiest arrogance.

We get perplexed when Billiefan says all athiests are sad, and then we get a post like this saying all Christians are nothing but whiney mopes pining for an afterlife. This is no better than what Billiefan does.

When I was a Christian the afterlife wasn't something I gave much thought to. To be sure my church was very, very liberal. That doesn't mean I wasn't a Christian though. I believed in God, the resurrection and all that jazz. I tried to live up to the "ideals" of Christ, such as generosity, humbleness, and kindness.

I didn't hate gays or tell Jews they were going to burn, or not think Pat Robertson was an idiot. In fact, the only thing that has really changed is my rejection of the supernatural aspects, which as I said before, never really informed my choices anyway. I made these moral choices as they improved the quality of this life, not future ones. Christianity for many makes their lives happier, not sadder, and the concept of the afterlife seems more a function of fear of the unknown than disatisfaction with life for the majority of Christians I have known.

Suddenly,

Well said. We think a lot alike. :)

Loki

11th August 2003, 07:09 PM

ceo_esq,

I'm giving this as a "points - win" to Yahzi at this stage - you seem to be talking past his core issue.

(Christian wrote) : The point is that, without this (our world) reference, we would not appreciate how wonderful Heaven is.

(Yahzi wrote) : Describing life on Earth as created to be deliberately sucky so that we will appreciate life in Heaven is exactly the attitude I am talking about.
"No pain, No gain" - isn't this the heart of christian theology? Christian (the poster) presents an assumption ("we would not appreciate...") as fact - precisely as Yahzi suggests.

Despite Suddenly and LCBOY's protests, it appears to me that Yahzi is *not* saying "all Christians are nothing but whiney mopes pining for an afterlife." The point is that christianity holds as a core tenet that the life to follow is better than this, and by a significant (perhaps infinite?) margin! Has anyone ever heard a christian theologian state that Heaven is "different" to Earth without either stating or clearly implying that "different" means "better beyond imagining"?

ceo_esq

12th August 2003, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
ceo_esq

But they did not expect the next world to be better than this one. Hades was a place so boring the souls all drank from the river Lethe so they could forget they had ever been alive. Surely you can grasp how this is utterly unlike the Christian version of the afterlife, where things are not only better, but perfect. The Greeks never assumed that the Universe owed them a living, not in this life or the next: the Christians assumed that being dead was an improvement on being alive.But the Greek philosophers, generally speaking, did not really believe in the cosmology of ritual Greek religion. That is not what I was referring to. Plato’s beliefs in the afterlife are a little confusing, but he seems to have rationalized something resembling a paradisiacal afterlife (http://www.davidson.edu/academic/classics/oneill/CLA350/ErMyth.html) (albeit heavily allegorized), at least for the righteous. (He also seems to have believed in the possibility of periodic reincarnation and transit between a pure otherworld and this world.)
Originally posted by Yahzi
Exactly. You have just refuted your own argument, and quite elegantly, I might add. The mere belief in an immortal soul does not automatically lead to belief in a perfect afterlife, as the Greek expierence shows. The belief in a perfect afterlife is a Christian addition.As I just pointed out, this is incorrect. Plato's philosophy arrived at a different but fundamentally not unrecognizable version.

Out of curiosity, how does hell fit into your theory?
Originally posted by Yahzi
The question is of gratitude. The humanist celebrates life and lives it to the fullest, concentrating on what has been given to him, and declares it enough to be happy with. If there is no afterlife, the humanist is still satistified with what we had. The Christian is exhorted to not concentrate on the Earthly world. Christian theology describes Earth as a place of punishment, an expulsion from Paradise, a place of testing, an ordeal that must be gotten through before we can return to our rightful place in Paradise, and Christians say things like, "if this is all there is then it is a sad, sad, world." Surely you can see how different an attitude this is.There's just enough truth in your characterization of Christian theology (to the extent I understand that theology) to make it convincingly misleading. Doesn't the Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm#299) say:Because creation comes forth from God's goodness, it shares in that goodness - "And God saw that it was good ... very good" - for God willed creation as a gift addressed to man, an inheritance destined for and entrusted to him. On many occasions the Church has had to defend the goodness of creation, including that of the physical world.What do you make of the Church's struggles against dualism and related strains of thought?
Originally posted by Yahzi
[I did not say [humanism] was incompatible with theism. I said it was incompatible with Christianity. The Catholics have spawned any number of intellectual movements which they later realized were utterly incompatible with Catholic ideology (Arianism, anyone?). Even Protestantism was arguably originally a Catholic intellectual movement (after all, Luther did not want to split the church, but merely reform it). Your objection is, at best, confused. Enlighten me, then. Humanism remains today an important Catholic intellectual movement (look at the bibliography in the encyclopedia entry I linked, particularly the reference to Jacques Maritain). Did the Catholic humanist philosophers of the 20th century, and their predecessors, simply not get the memo about incompatibility?

Cleopatra

12th August 2003, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Out of curiosity, how does hell fit into your theory?

Brilliant! :)

ceo-esq is right, Yahzi.

The existence of an afterlife paradise presupposes the existence of Hell as well and this not only according to Christianity but also to the rest of the religions that promised a life after death.

Hell doesn't serve only as a medium to control the individuals and to "persuade" them to live by a certain moral code but along with Paradise it serves to depict the afterlife as the continuation of the actual life in a stepped-up version of it, where everything, the good and the bad is magnified.

Apart from the myth of Er that ceo-esq provided --note that the myth of Er is only one of the five myths that Plato narrates in order to sketch the afterlife world and the laws that should govern it- we have another solid reference to the benefits of the afterlife and this time with the words of Socrates.

In his Platonic "Apology", Socrates states :"If Death is indeed what people discribe as a migration ( NOTE that in the whole of the platonic work Socrates believes in the immortality of the soul...) from here, to another place and if it's true that there we will find those that they have died before us, is there anybody who can claim that there is not a biggest benefit than death"

Yahzi. Was Socrates an ungrateful Christian too? :)

Yahzi

12th August 2003, 01:35 PM

ceo_esq
But the Greek philosophers, generally speaking, did not really believe in the cosmology of ritual Greek religion.
First you bring up Greek religion to refute my point, and now you have to refute Greek religion. The fact of Greek religion remains, even if Plato didn't like it, and it continues to support my point. It is not logically or historically necessary for a theory of immortality to lead to a theory of heaven.

Out of curiosity, how does hell fit into your theory?
From an entirely different perspective. I am only discussing one attribute of Christian theology: like any complex system, it has many sources. I attribute the concept of Hell not to a kind of ungratefulness, but rather to simple hatred and cruelty. Some people think it's entertaining to watch other creatures suffer. The Romans had the arena, the Puritans had bear-baiting, and we have Fear Factor.

Have you read Ingersoll's comment on Hell? How can God's infinite mercy be reconciled with the notion that Hell is the only prison from which there is no release. Even lifers in the Texas State Maximum Security facility get out when they die.

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ingersollsermon.html

The Methodist Church and every orthodox church teaches that this life is a period of probation; that there is no chance given for reformation after death; that God gives no opportunity to repent in another world.

This is the doctrine of the Christian world. If this dogma be true, then God will never release a soul from hell -- the pardoning power will never be exercised.

How happy God will be and how happy all the saved will be, knowing that billions and billions of his children, of their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, and children are convicts in the eternal dungeons, and that the words of pardon will never be spoken!

Enlighten me, then. Humanism remains today an important Catholic intellectual movement
:eek:

Don't ask me. Ask Paul Kurtz. And yes, humanism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. The celebration of humans as the purpose of human existance is logically inconsistent with the assertion that the purpose of human existance is to please some non-human entity. I'm sorry if your Catholic scholars can't figure this out, but they can't even figure out that the Shroud is a fake even after one of their own debunked it when it came out. It is not up to me to explain why Catholic theology is logically incoherent.

Cleopatra
Hell doesn't serve only as a medium to control the individuals and to "persuade" them to live by a certain moral code but along with Paradise it serves to depict the afterlife as the continuation of the actual life in a stepped-up version of it, where everything, the good and the bad is magnified.
Once agian you are pretending the Bible says something other than what it says. The Bible does not portray the afterlife as a "stepped up" version, but as "qualitatively different," as Christian already pointed out. Furthermore, refer to the Ingersoll quote above: the next life has an important difference from this one, a difference that makes it something other than life writ large.

And besides, why do you need life to be larger? Is your life so boring that you need more excitement, more terror, more grandeur, more, more, more? Isn't this the very attitude I was discussing?

Was Socrates an ungrateful Christian too?
Hmm. Did Socrates spitefully reject the material world, and drink poison and die even though his friends could have easily snuck him out of Athens, and off to Sparta, exactly like the Athenians wanted? Why, yes, he did.

Yes, Socrates attitude was similar (and probably even foundational too) the Christian attitude. It is Idealism: the rejection of the material world. Although I will grant that Socrates might have been just an extentialist, fed up with life and the burden of consciousness. His last words were something to the effect of "this will be an adventure," rather than "finally I'm done with effort!"

Yahzi

12th August 2003, 01:41 PM

In the presence of eternity the mountains are as transient as the clouds.

- Robert G. Ingersoll

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/debate/v_black-christianity_1.html

As usual, the brilliant make my point in a single sentence.

Cleopatra

12th August 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

Once agian you are pretending the Bible says something other than what it says.

Once again you don't prove that I am doing so.

I wasn't referring to the Bible because Christianity is not the only religion with reference to Hell. I was talking about the perception of Hell in general.

Furthermore, refer to the Ingersoll quote above: the next life has an important difference from this one, a difference that makes it something other than life writ large.

Yes, this is why I said that everything in Hell is magnified

And besides, why do you need life to be larger? Is your life so boring that you need more excitement, more terror, more grandeur, more, more, more? Isn't this the very attitude I was discussing?

" My" life is very good, why not anticipating for something better? ( Just giving you an example, do not attribute to me beliefs about afterlife please)

Yes, Socrates attitude was similar (and probably even foundational too) the Christian attitude.

You are wrong I am afraid. Socrates didn't sacrifice himself, he died because he believed in Laws and he believed that citizens should obey them whether they agree with them or not.

Christians want to compare Jesus to Socrates. In some christian texts you come up with the definition " The new Socrates" and they refer to Christ...

Of course they have took his death as a sacrifice. Socrates died because he wanted to be consistent with his ideas he didn't sacrifice himself for a better city.

Also, he didn't resemble to Jesus; you can imagine Jesus crying but never laughing and on the other hand you can imagine Socrates doing nothing but laughing,having his left eyebrow lifted, if we believe in Plato. Exactly like Kyle, as Unique would say....

ceo_esq

12th August 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
First you bring up Greek religion to refute my point, and now you have to refute Greek religion. The fact of Greek religion remains, even if Plato didn't like it, and it continues to support my point. It is not logically or historically necessary for a theory of immortality to lead to a theory of heaven.I never brought up the Greek religion you were writing about (Olympus, Hades and all that). I specifically referred to the cosmologies of certain Greek philosophers, which contrast sharply with ritual Greek polytheism. Sorry if I didn't make that sufficiently clear the first time around. If nothing else, the detour served to clarify one thing: you're not criticizing here the simple notion of getting a second life after this one, you're criticizing the notion of getting a much better life.

Anyhow, I agree that it's not historically necessary for a theory of immortality to lead to a theory of heaven. Plato and some of the other Greek thinkers seemed to think that it was logically implied (and it's clear from Plato's writing that he regarded Greek ritual religion as illogical), but I'll let the two of you disagree there. At any rate, I take the question here to be, not whether a theory of immortality necessarily leads to a theory of heaven, but whether a theory of heaven necessarily derives from a demanding and ungrateful attitude toward one's God. I think the answer is no. In my earlier post, I noted that Platonic philosophy does not lend itself well to this critique.
Originally posted by Yahzi
From an entirely different perspective. I am only discussing one attribute of Christian theology: like any complex system, it has many sources. I attribute the concept of Hell not to a kind of ungratefulness, but rather to simple hatred and cruelty. Some people think it's entertaining to watch other creatures suffer. The Romans had the arena, the Puritans had bear-baiting, and we have Fear Factor.

Have you read Ingersoll's comment on Hell? How can God's infinite mercy be reconciled with the notion that Hell is the only prison from which there is no release. Even lifers in the Texas State Maximum Security facility get out when they die.Considering the deep intrinsic relation between the Christian theological notions of heaven and hell, I frankly didn't expect my mention of hell to turn the discussion 180 degrees from believers' attitudes toward God to God's attitude toward believers. I understand that you're saying hell has a completely different conceptual and emotive origin from heaven. Still, if you can't make your theory of hell dovetail somewhat better than that with your theory of heaven, one could be forgiven for suspecting the presence of serious weaknesses in your theory of Christianity overall.
Originally posted by Yahzi
Don't ask me. Ask Paul Kurtz. And yes, humanism is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. The celebration of humans as the purpose of human existance is logically inconsistent with the assertion that the purpose of human existance is to please some non-human entity. I'm sorry if your Catholic scholars can't figure this out, but they can't even figure out that the Shroud is a fake even after one of their own debunked it when it came out. It is not up to me to explain why Catholic theology is logically incoherent.
Nothing in the encyclopedia I consulted suggested that humanism is the celebration of humanity as the sole purpose of human existence. But then you mention Paul Kurtz, so now I understand. You don't mean humanism. You mean secular humanism, a recent (and, judging from the Columbia Encyclopedia, relatively less influential) offshoot of humanism. You should be more precise.

(And why is it now my Catholic philosophers?)
Originally posted by Yahzi
It is Idealism: the rejection of the material world.I think you're overstating the idealist position here. But again, how do you account for the condemnation of such notions in Christian theology? I have a feeling you're going to respond by saying that this is an example of an internal contradiction. Yet even if it is, isn't the Christian message on this point rendered so ambivalent by the contradiction that your thesis about "ungrateful Christians" is proportionately weakened?

Loki

12th August 2003, 04:27 PM

ceo_esq,

(I'm prepared to admit that I may be missing something here, but...)
I take the question here to be, not whether a theory of immortality necessarily leads to a theory of heaven, but whether a theory of heaven necessarily derives from a demanding and ungrateful attitude toward one's God
I read Yahzi's point as being the exact opposite - that a theory of heaven (christian style) creates a demanding and ungrateful attitude. It's the other way round from what you're saying, isn't it? Once some human invented the idea of "perfect heaven" it logically leads to the "ungrateful" attitude for those that embrace it?

Of course, that doesn't mean that all, or even most, christians *are* "ungrateful" - they are human, and entirely free to be "illogical" in some aspects of their life if they wish.

Yahzi

12th August 2003, 09:41 PM

ceo_esq
If nothing else, the detour served to clarify one thing: you're not criticizing here the simple notion of getting a second life after this one, you're criticizing the notion of getting a much better life.
Only as it contrasts to the theory of immortality. The Greek decision that the soul was immortal is fundamentally different than the Christian decision. The Greeks decided it on logical grounds, because they could not conceive of atomic disintegration. I maintain that this is not why the Christians embraced the doctrine of immortality. The Christians embraced it for reasons other than the physics of the day. However, I am not going to argue this particular detail with you. It is sufficient for my case that the Christian expects a second life of significantly superior quality.

Still, if you can't make your theory of hell dovetail somewhat better than that with your theory of heaven, one could be forgiven for suspecting the presence of serious weaknesses in your theory of Christianity overall.
Or, one could suspect that Christanity contains contradictions, and hence no single theoretical framework could explain all of its features. But of course the idea that Christian theology is flawless is so ingrained in your prejudices that you cannot recognize a plain contradiction when it stares you in the face. Perhaps you would care to explain how it is that God is infinitely merciful, infinitely just, and yet maintains a place of infinite torture for people who commit a finite failure of belief.

You don't mean humanism. You mean secular humanism, a recent (and, judging from the Columbia Encyclopedia, relatively less influential) offshoot of humanism. You should be more precise.
From the "Humanist Manifesto III," on the "American Humanist" Web page:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity....

The word "secular" occurs exactly once on the page, and it is referring to secular society, not secular humanism. Apparently the people who call themselves humanists are not in the slightest confused about their Catholic status, and I am willing to bet that not even one other reader of this thread had even the slightest confusion about what I meant.

Earlier someone mentioned my "game plan," and I agreed that it would be more enjoyable and profitable not to devolve into endless arguments over technical details of the meaning of words. Apparently you don't agree.

Your view would be curious if it were not so obviously disingenous. As it is, it is merely tedious.

(And why is it now my Catholic philosophers?)
Because you have (over a number of threads) defended and promoted the Catholic Church with the constancy of a Jesuit. And the same rhetorical shennagians, in my humble opinion.

But again, how do you account for the condemnation of such notions in Christian theology?
Internal contradiction. Just like when the Bible says, "God does not do evil," and then it says, "God does evil." No, it does not weaken my point, because I am discussing one strain of thought in Christian theology. All the contradictions do is show that I'm not the first one to notice this, and various Christians felt the issue was important enough to refute.

Cleopatra
Socrates didn't sacrifice himself, he died because he believed in Laws and he believed that citizens should obey them whether they agree with them or not.
I'm sorry, is this the same Socrates who allowed his nephew to overthrow the democracy of Athens and install a ogliarchy - twice?!?

Socrates drank the hemlock because a) he was old and tired, and b) he wanted to spite the hell out of the Athenians. He knew perfectly well that none of them thought he should die for his crime. He just couldn't resist the ultimate nose-thumbing. And it worked: for 2,000 years the old bastard was pitied, and those cruel, anti-intellectual Athenians were looked down on.

***

There is a strong influence of Christian theology that seems almost existentialist: it is man's lot to suffer. Genesis is, in my reading, an ancient memory of the road to consciousness. Man was once like the animals, and lived in bliss: and then he gained a conscience, and the burden of existance, of consciousness, was his punishment. We would like to go back to that blissful existance, that mindless state of non-being that the animals have: but the only way we can free ourselves of the burden of consciousness is death.

Leif Roar

13th August 2003, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi

[SNIP]
However, I am not going to argue this particular detail with you. It is sufficient for my case that the Christian expects a second life of significantly superior quality.
[SNIP]

However, one of the fundamental theme of Christianity is that paradise is undeserved. According to Christianity it's only through God's forgiveness that people can be saved and be allowed "entry into" heaven and this forgivness is granted from God's goodness and love, and is not something that people deserves or earns in any way.

To give thanks to God and to be grateful for what you have is perhaps the most common theme in Christian works; sermons, songs, prayers, writings and offical liturgies.

ceo_esq

13th August 2003, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
It is sufficient for my case that the Christian expects a second life of significantly superior quality.This overstates the Christian position. The believer hopes for a new phase of his life that will be of significantly superior quality, as most of us do on a smaller scale in our daily lives anyway, but I don't think he can properly be said to expect it, as he is mindful of the strong possibility (depending on his particular brand of Christianity) of ending up somewhere besides heaven.
Originally posted by Yahzi
But of course the idea that Christian theology is flawless is so ingrained in your prejudices that you cannot recognize a plain contradiction when it stares you in the face.

...

Because you have (over a number of threads) defended and promoted the Catholic Church with the constancy of a Jesuit. And the same rhetorical shennagians, in my humble opinion.Neither of us is a believing Christian, Yahzi. I've never asserted that Christian theology is flawless, nor do I go around gratuitously promoting it. The amount of effort I expend in "defending" Christianity is a function of (1) my sense of intellectual fairness and honesty and (2) the number of times I witness misguided attacks on Christianity in this forum. Since I make my living defending other people's causes - not my own - from unjustified assaults, perhaps it's just second nature to me. At any rate, I'd much rather join in a well-reasoned critique of Christianity than acquiesce in a poorly reasoned one, and maybe locking horns with you is my way of working toward that goal.
Originally posted by Yahzi
From the "Humanist Manifesto III," on the "American Humanist" Web page:

The word "secular" occurs exactly once on the page, and it is referring to secular society, not secular humanism. Apparently the people who call themselves humanists are not in the slightest confused about their Catholic status, and I am willing to bet that not even one other reader of this thread had even the slightest confusion about what I meant.

Earlier someone mentioned my "game plan," and I agreed that it would be more enjoyable and profitable not to devolve into endless arguments over technical details of the meaning of words. Apparently you don't agree.

Your view would be curious if it were not so obviously disingenous. As it is, it is merely tedious.In his essay "What Is Humanism?" (http://www.jcn.com/humanism.html), Frederick Edwords (Executive Director of the American Humanist Association) makes the following observation:The word "humanism" has a number of meanings, and because authors and speakers often don't clarify which meaning they intend, those trying to explain humanism can easily become a source of confusion.Edwords goes on to clarify that the particular type of humanism advocated by the signatories of the successive Humanist Manifestoes relates to "secular" humanism and "religious" humanism - the latter reference appearing somewhat confusing at first blush, but it is clearer when he defines it as essentially a sociological rather than a doctrinal approach to religion (he cites the Unitarians as an example).

Nevertheless, Edwords acknowledges openly that the American Humanist Association does not espouse other forms of humanism. In recognizing the potential for legitimate confusion (which you deny), and offering some reasonably precise definitions, he not only avoids the problem that your muddled reference to humanism caused, but he manages to preserve a far less insulting tone than you.

The religioustolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism.htm) website confirms that the Humanist Manifestoes are basically "secular humanist" manifestoes, not to be confused with other forms of humanism. The site also notes:The terms Humanism and Humanist are essentially meaningless when used by themselves; their meanings only become clear when preceded by an adjective[.]Consider yourself respectfully corrected.

Cleopatra

13th August 2003, 09:02 AM

Yahzi, I am sure that you will agree that speculating about each other's intentions is not a good tactic, so I have another direct question that I'd appreciate very much if you answered it.

Do you mind if others attempt to debate your sophistries? :)

Skeptical Greg

13th August 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
The believer hopes for a new phase of his life that will be of significantly superior quality, as most of us do on a smaller scale in our daily lives anyway, but I don't think he can properly be said to expect it, as he is mindful of the strong possibility (depending on his particular brand of Christianity) of ending up somewhere besides heaven.

Oh No! Not the ' hopes ' vs ' believes ' question again...:D

Christian

13th August 2003, 10:14 AM

I really wish I had more time to debate, I simply don't. But the upside of that is I can pick exactly what I need to address.

I simply don't get why there is a contradiction here. The next are rhetorical questions.

Why Heaven being infinitely better creates the ungrateful attitude?

That is a non sequitor.

Why does a infinitely better world translates into this being a sucky world?

That is a false dichotomy.

And Yazhi’s response to me was a gigantic strawman.

Does anyone here see the distinction between objective and subjective elements. Yazhi is confusing them

An attitude is a subjective thing, I can have a sucky attitude toward a wonderful place. And I can have wonderful attitude toward a sucky place.

My attitude is irrelevant to the objective conditions of the place.

That Heaven is a better place is an objective measurable appreciation (not that I can measure it now, but my conceptualization of it).

Yahzi

13th August 2003, 12:16 PM

ceo_esq
This overstates the Christian position. The believer hopes for a new phase of his life that will be of significantly superior quality, as most of us do on a smaller scale in our daily lives anyway, but I don't think he can properly be said to expect it, as he is mindful of the strong possibility (depending on his particular brand of Christianity) of ending up somewhere besides heaven.
This is truly amusing. Some time ago I had a knock-down, drag-out argument on this board over the difference between "hope" and "belief." I characterized belief as containing expectation, and hope as not. Then I showed that Christians do not behave as if they expect an afterlife, thus neatly demonstrating that they merely hope, not believe.

The believer's defense was that just because you believe in something doesn't mean you change your behavour in any way.

So now we have you explaining that the average Christian does not expect to go to heaven (despite the fact that when you ask them, 75% of them say they expect to go to heaven), he merely hopes to. Which would, assuming he actually believed in this crap, mean he has a inversly proportional expectation that he will go to hell.

Now tell me this: do any signficant fraction of the Christian population behave as if they actually thought hell was a possiblity? They drink, fornicate, commit crimes, get remarried, eat ham & cheese sandwiches, sue, store up treasures on this earth, etc. at a virtually indistinguishable rate from the rest of us. Their fear of prison is more restraining than their fear of hell. What do you suppose that tells us?

The problem with your insane objection is that to the extent a Christian does not expect to go to heaven, he must expect to go to hell.

Now I recognize that this notion of "not expecting" directly challenges my thesis about gratitude: but the problem is that this particular argument is so incoherent and incommensurate with the facts that it cannot be considered seriously.

Neither of us is a believing Christian, Yahzi.
I don't understand your disingenousness. You are most certainly a believer. I say this not because you defend Christianity, but because of the way in which you defend it. Your arguments, and your viewpoints, consistently assume the truth of Christianity, in ways that are perhaps not obvious to you, but are certainly obvious to me.

Edwords goes on to clarify
The fact that he clarifies it makes my point. When you say humanist, the vast majority of people, and without question the overwhelming majority of people on this board, assume you mean secular humanism. Your fake innocence in pretending that you were unaware of the context of the discussion you were having, where it was being held, who you were having it with, and what the audience of the discussion thought, was simply a rhetorical device so you could stuff in more Catholic accolades. It was dishonest, and you know it.

The only other alternative is that you are so clueless that you actually didn't know what I was talking about. If that is the case, then you are too stupid to bother talking to.

You tell me which it was: were you merely waxing rhetorical, or are so you parochial that you can't see the world from any other perspective than Catholic?

Note that we are no longer even remotely discussing my original topic, but instead are invoking all sorts of tangents. Do you find it interesting that the moment you joined the discussion, it became derailed?

Yahzi

13th August 2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Yahzi, I am sure that you will agree that speculating about each other's intentions is not a good tactic, so I have another direct question that I'd appreciate very much if you answered it.

Do you mind if others attempt to debate your sophistries? :)
Oh glorious Queen, I am not the one who made a post extolling her vast knowledge and experience, and complaining that I was expected to engage every little sh*t on equal terms. That was you. Not me. You.

I don't object to people debating my sophistries (although if you are going to perjoritavely label my arguments that way, perhaps you shouldn't bother). I do mind when people contradict themselves, or the facts, or pretend to be obtuse.

Yahzi

13th August 2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Christian
My attitude is irrelevant to the objective conditions of the place.
I recognize that it is possible to hold attitudes that are unconnected to reality: but I fail to see why I should be expected to take such attitudes seriously.

If you are conceding the objective facts, then, as far as I am concerned, you are concedeing the argument. I realize you might not see it that way, but I'm not inclined to care.

Christian

13th August 2003, 12:31 PM

Yazhi wrote:
I recognize that it is possible to hold attitudes that are unconnected to reality: but I fail to see why I should be expected to take such attitudes seriously.

If you are conceding the objective facts, then, as far as I am concerned, you are concedeing the argument. I realize you might not see it that way, but I'm not inclined to care.

Oh, I'm sorry. I completely missed it. You are angry and bitter about things I do not know.

I really thought that you were practicing healthy debate. Fine, got it.

Leif Roar

13th August 2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
I don't understand your disingenousness. You are most certainly a believer. I say this not because you defend Christianity, but because of the way in which you defend it. Your arguments, and your viewpoints, consistently assume the truth of Christianity, in ways that are perhaps not obvious to you, but are certainly obvious to me.

Oh what balderdash. I have yet to read a post of Ceo_esq's where he has assumed any part of Christiany theology or mythos to be true. He will sometimes show how an argument against Christianity does not hold up if one makes the assumptions Christianity does and he will sometimes explain a particular Christian argument or thread of thought, but whenever he does so he is very careful to distance himself and his personal opinions from the argument he is presenting.

In my opinion he is generally very precise and careful in his choice of words. When people have confused the arguments that he presents with his opinion, it is normally not because of any fault of his. Read his posts very carefully. What he is actually saying is not what you apparently seem to think he is saying.

(Edited for better language)

Cleopatra

13th August 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

Oh glorious Queen, I am not the one who made a post extolling her vast knowledge and experience, and complaining that I was expected to engage every little sh*t on equal terms. That was you. Not me. You.

Yes I happen to be very honest, it's annoying sometimes, I know.

I don't object to people debating my sophistries (although if you are going to perjoritavely label my arguments that way, perhaps you shouldn't bother). I do mind when people contradict themselves, or the facts, or pretend to be obtuse.

Well Yahzi, I took your opening post as sophistry.I expected somebody who has an opinion on Socrates as the one you have to think highly of sophisty, I didn't want to offend you.I mentioned it as a compliment.

But after I read that ( bold mine):I don't understand your disingenousness. You are most certainly a believer. I say this not because you defend Christianity, but because of the way in which you defend it. Your arguments, and your viewpoints, consistently assume the truth of Christianity, in ways that are perhaps not obvious to you, but are certainly obvious to me.

I admit that I was definetely wrong. You are not a sophist. You are a missionary. Please, accept my apologies.

ReasonedFaith

13th August 2003, 07:27 PM

This believer totally appreciates this life. AND will appreciate the next one even more...

Yahzi

14th August 2003, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by Leif Roar
In my opinion he is generally very precise and careful in his choice of words.
Indeed... and how do you view his apparent confusion over the fact that when I used the word humanist, I didn't mean a Catholic doctrine?

Just his way of being precise, perhaps? I don't know if you've noticed this, but trying to have a conversation with people who are more interested in terminology than ideas is just plain tedious. I realize terminology is important: but it's not the point. At least, it's not mine. I've got more important things to talk about.

Yahzi

14th August 2003, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I admit that I was definetely wrong. You are not a sophist. You are a missionary. Please, accept my apologies.

Another possiblity is that I'm just annoyed at a Jesuit coming in and derailing my thread with endless, boring, tedious, idiotic discussions over whether I should have to preface humanism with the word secular when I am a well-known atheist posting on an atheist board.

Yahzi

14th August 2003, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by Christian
I really thought that you were practicing healthy debate. Fine, got it.
All I said was I don't want to debate your fantasies. If you want to talk about stuff that doesn't exist in the real world, doesn't have any connection to the real world, and doesn't follow real world logic, I'm not interested.

Really, is that so much of a problem?

Yahzi

14th August 2003, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by ReasonedFaith
This believer totally appreciates this life. AND will appreciate the next one even more...
You're too late, dude. This thread has already been killed by the snipers.

Cleopatra

14th August 2003, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi

Another possiblity is that I'm just annoyed at a Jesuit coming in and derailing my thread with endless, boring, tedious, idiotic discussions over whether I should have to preface humanism with the word secular when I am a well-known atheist posting on an atheist board.

Yahzi, you are a very clever person with a great sense of humor, that's why I don't miss a post of yours but allow me to point out to you that in this case you are wrong and to tell you the truth, it amazes me.

I had a specific reason when I asked you if you were joking, you didn't clarify it and ceo-esq replied accordingly. One doesn't need to be a theist to bring the examples he did.

As for this board. It's a skeptical board and skepticism doesn't exclude Faith, otherwise, the man who established modern scepticism, Martin Gardner wouldn't declare that he is a fideist :)*

*M.Gardner.1996.Transcript of Interview by M.Shermer,August 11.

edited to add the reference.

UnrepentantSinner

14th August 2003, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
ceo-esq

I'm sorry to be a pedant, but people's login IDs are, to me, just like their name and deserve to be spelled correctly. It's ceo_(underscore, not hyphen)esq. Perhaps he doesn't mind, but it's just a peevey thing for me.

Although ceo~esq would have been more hip...

Diamond

14th August 2003, 02:45 AM

Cleopatra

14th August 2003, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

I'm sorry to be a pedant, but people's login IDs are, to me, just like their name and deserve to be spelled correctly. It's ceo_(underscore, not hyphen)esq. Perhaps he doesn't mind, but it's just a peevey thing for me.

Although ceo~esq would have been more hip...

I totally agree with you, thanks for pointing it out to me. I am sorry ceo_esq.

Cleopatra

Diamond

14th August 2003, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I totally agree with you, thanks for pointing it out to me. I am sorry ceo_esq.

Cleopatra

Carry on Cleo! :D

Leif Roar

14th August 2003, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi

Indeed... and how do you view his apparent confusion over the fact that when I used the word humanist, I didn't mean a Catholic doctrine?
[SNIP]

The main point of my post was not about ceo_esq's choice of words, but that your description of ceo_esq as "disengenious" and "certainly a believer" and that his arguments and viewpoints "consistently assumes the truth of Christianity" are, in my opinion, complete and utter nonsense. I'm not going to bother arguing over a minor point in my post when you fail to address the main part of it.

ceo_esq

14th August 2003, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
So now we have you explaining that the average Christian does not expect to go to heaven (despite the fact that when you ask them, 75% of them say they expect to go to heaven), he merely hopes to. Which would, assuming he actually believed in this crap, mean he has a inversly proportional expectation that he will go to hell.

Now tell me this: do any signficant fraction of the Christian population behave as if they actually thought hell was a possiblity? They drink, fornicate, commit crimes, get remarried, eat ham & cheese sandwiches, sue, store up treasures on this earth, etc. at a virtually indistinguishable rate from the rest of us. Their fear of prison is more restraining than their fear of hell. What do you suppose that tells us?I should think it tells us simply that Christians often do not behave as though they "actually believed in this crap" - i.e. as though they believed in the afterlife as taught by their religion (heaven, hell and so forth). Now, assuming for the moment that they do believe in it, such behavior is obviously irrational in the same manner as my behaving in accordance with a phobia I intellectually know to be groundless, or my persisting in a habit I enjoy but intellectually know is likely to harm my health. But as far as their "bad" behavior itself is concerned, it is, as you point out, virtually indistinguishable from the rest of us, and this is obviously not necessarily the behavior of someone who expects to go to heaven. It's simply acting as though this life were the only one there is. What's the point you're making here?
Originally posted by Yahzi
The problem with your insane objection is that to the extent a Christian does not expect to go to heaven, he must expect to go to hell.In one sense, yes. But a Christian can expect fully that he will undoubtedly go either to heaven or hell, and hope for the first outcome without believing or expecting that it will occur. By analogy, you can expect that you will either pass or fail a selection process, and you can hope for the former without necessarily expecting one outcome over the other - much less believing that you are somehow entitled to the more favorable result. (Indeed, strictly speaking, you can without contradiction state that you honestly expect to pass without simultaneously believing that you will have earned such result or otherwise been entitled to it.)
Originally posted by Yahzi
Your arguments, and your viewpoints, consistently assume the truth of Christianity, in ways that are perhaps not obvious to you, but are certainly obvious to me.I daresay those ways are obvious to no one but you, Yahzi, so the next time it comes up perhaps you should explain. Obviously, certain of my arguments in this thread have at least partially assumed the truth of Christianity (for example, accepting arguendo the existence of the Christian God), but only for rhetorical purposes - and I take care to identify such assumptions as rhetorical assumptions where there would otherwise be ambiguity.
Originally posted by Yahzi
The fact that he clarifies it makes my point. When you say humanist, the vast majority of people, and without question the overwhelming majority of people on this board, assume you mean secular humanism. Your fake innocence in pretending that you were unaware of the context of the discussion you were having, where it was being held, who you were having it with, and what the audience of the discussion thought, was simply a rhetorical device so you could stuff in more Catholic accolades. It was dishonest, and you know it.

[…]

Another possiblity is that I'm just annoyed at a Jesuit coming in and derailing my thread with endless, boring, tedious, idiotic discussions over whether I should have to preface humanism with the word secular when I am a well-known atheist posting on an atheist board.Excuse me for objecting to your use of the term "humanism" in such a partisan manner. If someone else used the term in a manner that implied that humanism was incompatible with atheism, both of us would probably object.

And this isn’t an atheist board.
Originally posted by Yahzi
Note that we are no longer even remotely discussing my original topic, but instead are invoking all sorts of tangents. Do you find it interesting that the moment you joined the discussion, it became derailed? I don't know, Yahzi. I can make the following observations, though: unlike you, every single post of mine, including this one, has led off with substantive remarks that are strictly on topic. Second, at least two-thirds of my overall text has been strictly on topic, and if you hadn't resorted to ad hominem attacks it would have been three-quarters or more. Your original argument has certainly been somewhat derailed, for which I can hardly take full credit; if you think that the discussion itself has been derailed, however, I can take even less credit for that.

Yahzi

14th August 2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
As for this board. It's a skeptical board and skepticism doesn't exclude Faith, otherwise, the man who established modern scepticism, Martin Gardner wouldn't declare that he is a fideist
Um. Martin Gardner did not establish modern scepticism. And you miss the point. I did not say that skepticism excluded faith: what I said was ceo_esq's claiming he did not understand me or the context of our discussion was crap.

At the very beginning of this thread, someone mentioned the "game plan." I agreed, saying that tedious arguments over words was boring and unprofitable. Then ceo_esq comes along and pretends that he doesn't know what I was talking about because I wasn't precise enough. If you can't see that for bullsh*t, then I can't help you.

Yahzi

14th August 2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Excuse me for objecting to your use of the term "humanism" in such a partisan manner. If someone else used the term in a manner that implied that humanism was incompatible with atheism, both of us would probably object.
But you didn't object to my use of the word. You pretended you didn't understand it. Do you see the difference? Do you see how a straightforward "You know there are religous humanisms too" is entirely different than "I am mystified..."

You were engaging in rhetorical games, and I caught you, and you just don't have the cojones to come out and admit it.

You give the distinct impression of someone who is arguing for argument's sake, who is only practicing rhetoric and scoring points. The concept of discussing actual ideas, with a person so intransgient that he pretends confusion when he knows perfectly well what I meant by the use of a single word, is daunting. Frankly, I don't think its worth the bother.

Yahzi

14th August 2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Leif Roar
I'm not going to bother arguing over a minor point in my post when you fail to address the main part of it.
Your minor point is my evidence. When I assert that ceo_esq is a closet Jesuit, the fact that he interprets the word humanism as a Catholic doctrine stands as evidence of his parochial views.

You might be right: he might only be pretending that Christianity is true so that he can argue its case more effectively. But I'm not particularly interested in argument for argument's sake, so if all ceo_esq has to offer me is his fantasies, we can just stop now. I'd prefer to spend my time talking to people who have something real to say.

Leif Roar

14th August 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi

Your minor point is my evidence. When I assert that ceo_esq is a closet Jesuit, the fact that he interprets the word humanism as a Catholic doctrine stands as evidence of his parochial views.

Very well. Since you insist. You ignored my main point, that I have never seen a post by ceo_esq where he has advanced a Christian assumption as the de facto truth, and you confusedly enough retorted on my comment about ceo_esq being very carefull in choosing his words by pointing out an instance where ceo_esq had misunderstood you because of your choice of words. Now this is somehow supposed to stand as evidence that his views are somehow narrow-minded?

I can't say I find your argument particularly coherent.

Secondly, that you seem to believe he interpreted the word "humanism" to mean a Catholic doctrine shows that you have completely failed to understand what he actually said. He said, and I quote, "Humanism remains today an important Catholic intellectual movement." How you manage to wrestle the interpretations "Humanism is only a Catholic thing" and "Humanism is Catholic doctrine" from that is beyond my understanding. It might seem you simply do not want to understand him.

You might be right: he might only be pretending that Christianity is true so that he can argue its case more effectively.

[SNIP]

If you think that's what I was saying, then you also completely failed to understand my post.

Yahzi

15th August 2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Leif Roar

pointing out an instance where ceo_esq had misunderstood you because of your choice of words. Now this is somehow supposed to stand as evidence that his views are somehow narrow-minded?
Ask 100 people on this board to perform a free-association word test. Say the word "humanism," and see what they respond with. Do you seriously think that any other person on this board would say "Catholic?"

Go out into the street and ask people at random. Do you think any but a tiny minority are going to respone with "Catholic" instead of "secular?"

Indeed, the only place you would expect people to immediately associate the word humansim with Catholic rather than secular is in a Catholic theology class. Or a group of priests. Or a monastery.

It's as if I said "Sieg Heil!" and ceo_esq threw his hand in the air and clicked his heels, and now you are asking me why I think he might be sympathetic to the Nazi cause.

Obviously, if ceo_esq says he isn't a believer, I can't expect anyone to take his word over mine. I even believe him myself. After all, who would know better than he? Yet a careful reading of his various posts will show, I think, that he has a peculiar bias towards all things Catholic.

It's true, of course, that I also have a bias towards all things Catholic, but in a rather different direction. Many people have taken this to mean I don't believe in Catholic doctrine, and reasonably so, since I don't.

Loki

15th August 2003, 09:34 PM

Yahzi,

Obviously, if ceo_esq says he isn't a believer, I can't expect anyone to take his word over mine. I even believe him myself. After all, who would know better than he? Yet a careful reading of his various posts will show, I think, that he has a peculiar bias towards all things Catholic
Sorry, but I'm on the other side of the fence on this one - I think ceo_esq does exactly what he says he does. He has the (admirable) ability to take either side of an argument and make it "seem like his own". A natural debater. If he tends to take the "pro-christian/catholic side" more often than not I think thats just a consequecne of (a) here at the JREF the 'anti' side never seems to have a problem of finding enough people to field a team! and (b) the 'anti' arguments are often fairly "simplistic" (I can say that - many of them are mine!) so he can (rightfully) point out the flaws.

I get the strong impressoin that on a pro-catholic forum ceo_esq would be considered the spawn of Satan!

Cleopatra

16th August 2003, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi

Um. Martin Gardner did not establish modern scepticism. And you miss the point. I did not say that skepticism excluded faith: what I said was ceo_esq's claiming he did not understand me or the context of our discussion was crap.

I am not an expert in History of Science. Martin Shermer in the Skeptical Manifesto, points M.Gardner as the founder of the modern sceptical movement with the book he published in 1952 "Fads and Fallacies In the Name of Science". If you have another reference I 'd be very thankful if you provided it for me,although I was thrilled to read that the founder of modern skeptical movement is not an atheist but a fideist :)

I think that Loki expressed in the best possible way what I have been trying to say about ceo-esq's method.As Loki points out, the ability that ceo-esq has to debate both sides of an argument is admirable indeed and it proves how knowledgable he is.

Yahzi

16th August 2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Martin Shermer in the Skeptical Manifesto, points M.Gardner as the founder of the modern sceptical movement...

I think that Loki expressed in the best possible way what I have been trying to say about ceo-esq's method.As Loki points out, the ability that ceo-esq has to debate both sides of an argument is admirable indeed and it proves how knowledgable he is.
I think Shermer's practicing a little flattery, but I see his point. Gardner was certainly an important voice.

As for ceo_esq, I understand and agree with all the things you all have said. But I am still pissed that he pretended to be mystifyed by my use of a word when he knew perfectly well what I meant. It is not the fact of Catholic humanism I object to, but the insinuation that I was somehow imprecise in not specifying the context when the context was perfectly clear. If we all had to specify the complete context every time we said anything, we would never be able to communicate even the smallest idea. Which ceo_esq understands. He was simply too caught up in displaying his knowledge to an admiring audience to actually remember he was having a conversation.

I maintain that interpreting the word "humanism" as Catholic on this board, while talking to this poster, when you already know this poster's position, is bizarre enough to invite questioning your perspective. Go back and read the relevant posts: he didn't just say, "You know there's Catholic humanism too." He pretended that the humanism I meant wasnot merely the obscure and non-context-supported one, but also the one I obviously could not mean, since it directly contradicted the argument I used it in.

Have you ever heard the saying, "If something I say has two possible interpretations, and one of those interpretations hurts your feelings, then I meant the other one." A similar principle applys. If a word I use can be interpreted in two ways, and one of those ways is out of context, obscure, and invalidates my entire argument, then I meant the other way.

ceo_esq deliberatly picked the one obscure, out of context meaning of the word humanism that made my argument self-defeating. He required me to clarify before he acknowledged that there was a possiblity that I could have ever meant the other interpretation. To this minute he maintains that "humanism," when unqualified, means to the educated reader a Catholic doctrine which probably half this board has never heard of, while ample evidence that humanists routinely refer themselves, their websites, their philosophy, and their manifesto without the qualify word "secular" are disproved by pointing out that somewhere deep in their text they do stoop to clarify the issue. He didn't just point out that there were other kinds of humanism: he asserted that my argument failed because I used the wrong word.

There's a name for this, and it's bullsh*t. It is the first principle of philosophy that you ascribe to your opponent the best possible case. It is the first principle of legalism and rhetoric that you do the opposite. Guess which one ceo_esq was doing.

Cleopatra

16th August 2003, 12:57 PM

You understand that I am not in the position to know Shermer's intentions, I am somebody who tries to study the matter and needs solid bibliographic references and the Skeptical Manifesto is a good one.
I guess that I will have to examine what you say.

As for the other issue I think that we have exhausted it, I can understand your frustration but by the reactions I got in the thread where I tried and still I am still trying to show why it is wrong to ask for proof in order to believe in God,I thought that it was within the rules of the debate in this forum to try to confuse the opponent by "obliging him" to specify the complete context of his post over and over or to assert that the opponent's argument fails because he uses the other word that happens to be out of the context.

What so ever, I got your point and you must agree that this thread turned into a serious and very interesting debate, regardless if this was your intention when you started it or not :)

I think that it would be interesting if,just for once, for the sake of the argument and the joy of debating, the Atheists of the forum tried to defend Deism and the Theists, in their turn, attempted to find some meaning in Atheism.... :p

runs to escape from bricks that fly towards her direction...

The Mad Linguist

16th August 2003, 01:17 PM

Cleopatra,

You do understand that, contrary to your apparent usage...

I think that it would be interesting if,just for once, for the sake of the argument and the joy of debating, the Atheists of the forum tried to defend Deism and the Theists, in their turn, attempted to find some meaning in Atheism....

..."Deism" and "Theism" are not synonyms? you know they refer to significantly different belief systems?

Cleopatra

16th August 2003, 01:30 PM

Do you mean linguistically, philosophically or politically?

The Mad Linguist

16th August 2003, 02:11 PM

I mean in common, everyday usage here on these forums and in other contexts where most participants have a higher-than-average knowledge of religion and philosophy.

(since religion and philosophy are the only contexts the words are ever used in, that kinda stands to reason).

I'd never heard of Deism till I started reading background material on Atheism-versus-Theism and encountered the notion of Deism. Since I first heard the word, I have never heard anyone but you use it as a synonym for Theism. I have witnessed controversy over whether or not they are overlapping sets, over whether Theism is a subset of Deism or vice versa, but never have I witnessed Deism being used as a synonym for Theism.

Edited to add: Politically??? :confused:

Cleopatra

17th August 2003, 02:31 AM

Mad Linguist I thought that you were teasing me inspired by the discussion I had with Yahzi above, that's why I answered back with a tease :)

Of course they are not synonyms, it was just one of my proverbial greenglish sentences.

The Mad Linguist

17th August 2003, 06:05 AM

Ah right. Got it. Silly me.

Roadtoad

17th August 2003, 03:44 PM

I find it hard to digest so many of these arguments. Sometimes, it comes down to splitting hairs, and while there's value in that, I occasionally find that it can muddy the waters unnecessarily. (I could be wrong, of course, and reserve the right to be so.)

But the basic point originally made on this thread remains: Most Christians are, indeed, ungrateful slobs.

I go to church, (or used to), and listen to people bleat on about a God who doesn't give them nice cars, who doesn't guarantee them good jobs, or who just seems so distant, forgetting as they do so that Scripture has been pretty clear on a number of points:

(1.) Life is hard. Jesus repeatedly warned his disciples that they would face opposition for what they claimed to believe. The prophets of ancient Israel suffered incredibly at the hands of the people they were sent to minister to. In fact, many of them died horribly for their faith.

(2.) God isn't going to bail you out. One of the reasons the miracles stand out is because there were really quite few of them. God may have acted in Israel's behalf in the Bible, and later on he may have acted in behalf of the Church, but those incidents are very, very rare. Most miracles in real life are about people getting off their butts, and doing for themselves. As Randi mentioned in this week's commentary, like his cat, most folks look for where they can get a meal, and stick with it there. Sometimes, it works, sometimes, it doesn't.

(3.) The hand of God is found at the end of your arm. The biggest mistake I see happening in the Church today is the expectation that simply by hitting out knees and muttering a few magic words, we can alter the course and outcome of a situation. That is a LIE.

Scripture is clear, and the vast majority of churches in America ignore this, not just because it's painful, but because it's ultimately inconvenient. It cuts into the tithe money, and diminishes the Pastor's audience. We are called upon as Christians to SERVE FIRST, then worry about what comes later. We're supposed to be manning the homeless shelters, building the hospitals, teaching in the prisons, doing all those things that we've now got the government doing. We're supposed to do so without preaching, without fanfare, and without complaint. IF we are asked why we do so, our answer is simple: "As was given to me, so I give to you."

Far too often, we've forgotten this. I've got a friend who'd be homeless without my help living with us right now. I do this not just because of what I choose to believe, but because it's the right thing to do.

Interestingly, Kittynh served in the home of a dying friend. She's an atheist, yes, but she's displayed more faith in God than the vast majority of Christians in this country. You ask me, I'd say she did what 99% of what most Christians will not do, based upon what I've seen.

I remember well when AIDS exploded here in America. The first call among the Christian media, with the rare exception of Dr. James Dobson, was to quarantine all gays and lesbians, ideally in the Nevada desert in some sort of camp. I'm serious! We had a major health crisis in the United States, and the best answer the Evangelical Community could come up with was to lock innocent people up in a concetration camp! This was faith? THIS WAS GRATITUDE?

We who claim Christ are called upon to do the work. We're not promised any benefits, we're not even promised anything special in Heaven. Out of gratitude, we're to give to our communities, and we're to SHUT UP about it. We're called upon to present an example of humility and grace, and frankly, (Yahzi, I think you can back me up on this), we ain't done it.

If this is salvation, this NIMBY attitude, this bleating about how it's unfair that there's evolution, this head up the @$$ attitude, I'd rather be a pagan.