Theists, a question for you.

[Bernini]

I've noticed the theists on this board have pretty much a one track mind, believe in Jesus or go to hell.

But what is your opinion of the stranger cults of your sect? The one's that believe if you get sick, then in some way you've sinned. These people will let their children die because of it. There's plenty more, like the woman that drowned her children so they could go to heaven, is she a better person to you because she's a believer?

If an atheist takes their child to the doctor when they get sick and they live, are they more likely to go to hell than an xtian that allows their child to die?

Who is worse off in your mind? The reason I ask, is I've noticed most theists think if you believe in Jesus then it doesn't matter what you do after that, since all you have to do is ask for forgiveness. Yet they will tell atheists they're bound for hell because of their non beliefs, even though that atheist might be a kind and caring person.

[RenaissanceMan]

Pretty messed up, isn't it?

Religious sects are cults. Some are harmless, like the Ahmish. You don't see Ahmish folks spamming hate speech on internet forums.

Religion is a form of mental conditioning, like getting someone to confess to a crime they didn't commit. If you bombard a captive audience with a repeating message long enough, many of them will believe it.

[calpurnpiso]

Religion is conditioning but ONLY when the brain is susceptible to a neurological disorder that erodes its logic centers. A six year old child can not tell the difference between fantasy and reality ( Santa, buggyman, Toothfairy are real people) but if h/she in adulthood still can not tell the difference between said fantasies (Santa, buggyman, Ghosts, Demons, resurrected people are real) and reality despite an extensive education, one could conclude the person suffers from mental illness.

This is were the Christian tales come from. BAcked up by concrete EVIDENCE.

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/echo/tumult-e.html

[Bryan]

You don't see Ahmish folks spamming hate speech on internet forums.
Not yet.

[leguru]

Bernini, please review the story of Abraham's sacrifice of his only son, Isaac, in Ch 22 of Genesis. And remember, both xtians and muslims claim their religion came from this man, Abraham. (and Jews, BTW) Then review Luke 21:41-44. what a loving Father!!! And how about that mother who threw her three sons into the San Francisco Bay because the "voices told her to." Isn't that what "prophets" claim? The voices told me (God told me), whatever. How can a rational being say they were "inspired" to do good by reading or following such drivel? :lol:

[Baphomet]

Christianity itself is a strange cult...

[The Branch]

Quite frankly, being a "kind and caring" person just won't cut it for heaven. Heaven is a perfect place, right? That's pretty much a given. Just because someone is compassionate and loving does not make them perfect, and so they are unfit for going to heaven.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." -Romans 3:22-24

"Sin" is defined as anything that does not please or angers God. God's standards are "Be perfect or be punished." In other words, unless you are perfect you deserve to die, because God has no need for imperfect people that anger him. The reason Jesus walked the earth and died was to take the sins of man and put them on himself. In essence, Jesus took the punishment meant for us all and bore it himself.

Now the gift of being free from sin is offered to everyone (despite their religious stance), but that doesn't mean everyone is going to heaven. Like any gift, it has to be opened and received for it to be of any value. Those who call themselves "Christians" are those who have accepted the gift and have been pardoned of sin, which is the only reason they go to heaven after death. Those who choose not to take the gift still have their sin, and so will be condemned accordingly.


Sorry if I did not answer Bernini's original question, or if I have made any assertions that are not based upon pure scientifc fact. I am only stating my beliefs. If Bernini could state his question more clearly, I would be happy to offer my opinion (as the question stands now, its supposed to be giving two elements to be compared, but I only see one...).

[Sandy]

In my late years, two things have caused me a lot of unhappiness. The first was going on line in 1993 and running into Conservative discussion forums. I had no idea that Christians hated to such an extent. When Clinton was exposed for his playing with Monica in the Oval Office, the whole world of these forums seemed to be obsessed with sex. It scared me that the Christians could not seem to handle their own lives without a flurry of federal laws and the forums were screaming for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting adultry.

The second thing that shook me was the Bush promise to take care of the churches financially through his faith based grants and how the Christians reacted to this. He put the churches on the federal payroll and even today is planning to reimburse the churches for their charity work done during Katrina and Rita. To continue to buy the Christian votes, he made a promise to prohibit gay marriages, stop financing embryonic stem cell research, prohibit abortions and bring creation into the public schools as a science class. The Christians flocked into the ballot boothes and put this ill-equipped man into the white house.

They got what they wanted and over 2000 young American men lost their lives in an illegal war.

[Iconoclastic1]

Quite frankly, being a "kind and caring" person just won't cut it for heaven. Heaven is a perfect place, right? That's pretty much a given. Just because someone is compassionate and loving does not make them perfect, and so they are unfit for going to heaven.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." -Romans 3:22-24

"Sin" is defined as anything that does not please or angers God. God's standards are "Be perfect or be punished." In other words, unless you are perfect you deserve to die, because God has no need for imperfect people that anger him. The reason Jesus walked the earth and died was to take the sins of man and put them on himself. In essence, Jesus took the punishment meant for us all and bore it himself.

Now the gift of being free from sin is offered to everyone (despite their religious stance), but that doesn't mean everyone is going to heaven. Like any gift, it has to be opened and received for it to be of any value. Those who call themselves "Christians" are those who have accepted the gift and have been pardoned of sin, which is the only reason they go to heaven after death. Those who choose not to take the gift still have their sin, and so will be condemned accordingly.


Sorry if I did not answer Bernini's original question, or if I have made any assertions that are not based upon pure scientifc fact. I am only stating my beliefs. If Bernini could state his question more clearly, I would be happy to offer my opinion (as the question stands now, its supposed to be giving two elements to be compared, but I only see one...).
Your description of God makes him sound like a petulant brat. Creating imperfect beings and then holding them to an impossible standard is not the action of a loving deity, or even a sane one.

Your description of Jesus makes him sound like a loophole in a legal contract. If God recognized a problem in the contract to begin with why not just modify the contract instead of using the circuitous solution of making a loophole for it?

Your description of christianity makes it sound like a bunch of people who don't want to accept responsibility for their own actions, so instead pick a stooge to pin them on.

I hear this same christian sales pitch all the time and it never ceases to absolutely stagger me how this nonsensical gibberish seems to make perfect sense to the person saying it.

[Baphomet]

Quite frankly, being a "kind and caring" person just won't cut it for heaven. Heaven is a perfect place, right? That's pretty much a given. Just because someone is compassionate and loving does not make them perfect, and so they are unfit for going to heaven.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." -Romans 3:22-24

"Sin" is defined as anything that does not please or angers God. God's standards are "Be perfect or be punished." In other words, unless you are perfect you deserve to die, because God has no need for imperfect people that anger him. The reason Jesus walked the earth and died was to take the sins of man and put them on himself. In essence, Jesus took the punishment meant for us all and bore it himself.

Now the gift of being free from sin is offered to everyone (despite their religious stance), but that doesn't mean everyone is going to heaven. Like any gift, it has to be opened and received for it to be of any value. Those who call themselves "Christians" are those who have accepted the gift and have been pardoned of sin, which is the only reason they go to heaven after death. Those who choose not to take the gift still have their sin, and so will be condemned accordingly.


Sorry if I did not answer Bernini's original question, or if I have made any assertions that are not based upon pure scientifc fact. I am only stating my beliefs. If Bernini could state his question more clearly, I would be happy to offer my opinion (as the question stands now, its supposed to be giving two elements to be compared, but I only see one...).
sorry, but none of that makes any sense, please explain.

[Baphomet]

Sandy wrote:

In my late years, two things have caused me a lot of unhappiness. The first was going on line in 1993 and running into Conservative discussion forums. I had no idea that Christians hated to such an extent. When Clinton was exposed for his playing with Monica in the Oval Office, the whole world of these forums seemed to be obsessed with sex. It scared me that the Christians could not seem to handle their own lives without a flurry of federal laws and the forums were screaming for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting adultry.

The second thing that shook me was the Bush promise to take care of the churches financially through his faith based grants and how the Christians reacted to this. He put the churches on the federal payroll and even today is planning to reimburse the churches for their charity work done during Katrina and Rita. To continue to buy the Christian votes, he made a promise to prohibit gay marriages, stop financing embryonic stem cell research, prohibit abortions and bring creation into the public schools as a science class. The Christians flocked into the ballot boothes and put this ill-equipped man into the white house.

They got what they wanted and over 2000 young American men lost their lives in an illegal war.
yeah, I hate bush's policies on gays, science, and religion.

[The Branch]

Sandy:

I do not care very much for Bush Jr, and while his legislative decisions have focused around Christian ideals, I can't help but feel that he is merely exploiting the morals of others to maintain his position in office. What he has done as a president so far has nauseated me. Terrorists commit unmentionable acts in the name of religion, but Islamic religious leaders are declaring that their actions are not in keeping with their beliefs. That is the way I feel about Bush, he is using religion as an excuse to meet his own personal agenda, but he should in no way be considered a representative of Christianity. He's just as bad as the terrorists.


reconciled:

All people die when their number comes up. The kind of death being refered to in that verse (Romans 6:23) is not that of the body, but of the mind (I prefer the word "spirit"). Basically, if you do not meet God's standards after you're good and dead (being blameless and without sin), your mind (spirit) is scrapped. Simple as that. Jesus died to take our sin, so that anyone might come into God's favor if they accept Jesus' gift of mercy.


Iconoclastic1:

I admit that I am being very grave with this issue, but salvation comes up WAY more often than condemnation does in church. Why should God be forced to compromise if he is all powerful? Why should he have to deal with us? You are right when you hold God up to be a loving God, though, which is why he sent Jesus to die for us. He IS the loophole (I actually like the wording you use here) that saves us from having to pay for our sins ourselves.

"Your description of christianity makes it sound like a bunch of people who don't want to accept responsibility for their own actions, so instead pick a stooge to pin them on."


But I DON'T want to take responsibility for my sins, which is why I'm so glad Jesus was willing to. :)


Jesus was God incarnate; God purposely limited his powers and came to earth to do the most ungodly thing anyone could do: the God that created the universe died for us!

[Iconoclastic1]

Iconoclastic1:

I admit that I am being very grave with this issue, but salvation comes up WAY more often than condemnation does in church. Why should God be forced to compromise if he is all powerful? Why should he have to deal with us? You are right when you hold God up to be a loving God, though, which is why he sent Jesus to die for us. He IS the loophole (I actually like the wording you use here) that saves us from having to pay for our sins ourselves.

"Your description of christianity makes it sound like a bunch of people who don't want to accept responsibility for their own actions, so instead pick a stooge to pin them on."


But I DON'T want to take responsibility for my sins, which is why I'm so glad Jesus was willing to. :)


Jesus was God incarnate; God purposely limited his powers and came to earth to do the most ungodly thing anyone could do: the God that created the universe died for us!
Not... really. According to the mythology, Jesus didn't die in any sense we're familiar with. His spirit just took a hiatus from his body to go hang out with some spirits in Sheol. It came right back though, so where's the death part? Anyway, I thought the punishment for a sinful life was eternity in hell. If JC really took everybody's sin and suffered the punishment in their stead, shouldn't he be down there getting rotated on a spit by some big red dude with horns and a tail?

[Baphomet]

branch wrote:

Quite frankly, being a "kind and caring" person just won't cut it for heaven. Heaven is a perfect place, right? That's pretty much a given. Just because someone is compassionate and loving does not make them perfect, and so they are unfit for going to heaven.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." -Romans 3:22-24

"Sin" is defined as anything that does not please or angers God. God's standards are "Be perfect or be punished." In other words, unless you are perfect you deserve to die, because God has no need for imperfect people that anger him. The reason Jesus walked the earth and died was to take the sins of man and put them on himself. In essence, Jesus took the punishment meant for us all and bore it himself.

Now the gift of being free from sin is offered to everyone (despite their religious stance), but that doesn't mean everyone is going to heaven. Like any gift, it has to be opened and received for it to be of any value. Those who call themselves "Christians" are those who have accepted the gift and have been pardoned of sin, which is the only reason they go to heaven after death. Those who choose not to take the gift still have their sin, and so will be condemned accordingly.


Sorry if I did not answer Bernini's original question, or if I have made any assertions that are not based upon pure scientifc fact. I am only stating my beliefs. If Bernini could state his question more clearly, I would be happy to offer my opinion (as the question stands now, its supposed to be giving two elements to be compared, but I only see one...).
so, being a kind and compassionate person is not enough to enter heaven, then how does accepting jesus make one perfect? How does one accept jesus? What about the natives down deep in some jungle that never get to hear about jesus, what about them? The people that lived before jesus?

[Iconoclastic1]

How can God have any respect for any of the christians that make it to heaven if he knows that not a single one of them had the courage and conviction to stand up and take responsibility for their own mistakes and accept the punishment that they justly deserved, instead choosing his only begotten son as a patsy to take the rap for their misdeeds?

[Reverend Blasphemy]

The Branch Davidian[/b]]Quite frankly, being a "kind and caring" person just won't cut it for heaven. Heaven is a perfect place, right? That's pretty much a given. Just because someone is compassionate and loving does not make them perfect, and so they are unfit for going to heaven.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." -Romans 3:22-24

"Sin" is defined as anything that does not please or angers God. God's standards are "Be perfect or be punished." In other words, unless you are perfect you deserve to die, because God has no need for imperfect people that anger him. The reason Jesus walked the earth and died was to take the sins of man and put them on himself. In essence, Jesus took the punishment meant for us all and bore it himself.

Now the gift of being free from sin is offered to everyone (despite their religious stance), but that doesn't mean everyone is going to heaven. Like any gift, it has to be opened and received for it to be of any value. Those who call themselves "Christians" are those who have accepted the gift and have been pardoned of sin, which is the only reason they go to heaven after death. Those who choose not to take the gift still have their sin, and so will be condemned accordingly.
Be perfect, or be punished. What a loving father! :D:D:D

[The Branch]

Before Jesus came to the Earth, people would atone for their sins with sacrifice. When people sacrificed, they were basically saying to God, "Hey, Lord, I know I sinned against you and did not please you, so please accept this humble sacrifice as payment for my sins instead of having me paying for them directly." Usually the sacrifice would be a young lamb free of physical defect. When Jesus came and died for us, he was the sacrifice that was paid for us in our place, hence the popular saying "Lamb of God". When someone accepts Jesus, they are basically acknowledging that Jesus paid their admission into heaven, and that they can be accepted as sinless because of Jesus' sacrifice.

We can all agree that hell is where God is NOT, right?

"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" -Mark 15:34

When Jesus took all the sin that was committed and to be committed, God left Jesus because he could not be present with him with all the sin he was bearing. Sounds like hell to me.

[ocmpoma]

"We can all agree that hell is where God is NOT, right?"

No. I disagree with this assertion. First off, the Christian god does not exist other than as a concept, rendering this statement almost nonsensical. Secondly, even if the Christian god did exist (*cough, cough*), one of its supposed properties is its omnipresence.

[Sternwallow]

Furthermore, the very clear descriptions of hell do not say it is separation from God, although that is a reasonable assumption, but that there is a lake of fire that burns the sinner forever. Hell is very physical pain and torment, not just an absence of God according to God. Atheists I know would leap at going to a hell that was just like heaven, but with no god in sight.

If a farmer transgressed, he could deprive himself of a very valuable piece of property to recompense God. Jesus does not fill that pattern. The book says that it was God, not man, who sacrificed His son. His son was in no way God's property to sacrifice or not, being God's alter ego. Mankind lost nothing by the death of Jesus and any Christian will tell you that mankind gained the possibility of salvation. So forget the "lamb of God", "Jesus died", "accept Jesus and become perfect" and spattering ox blood around the altar varieties of stupidity. Get real and accept the consequences of your actions while denying responsibility for the actions of any one else. Reality doesn't permit transfer of airline tickets or sins.

[The Branch]

How can God have any respect for any of the christians that make it to heaven if he knows that not a single one of them had the courage and conviction to stand up and take responsibility for their own mistakes and accept the punishment that they justly deserved, instead choosing his only begotten son as a patsy to take the rap for their misdeeds?
Why does he respect us so much? It baffles me why he cares about us at all when we continue to keep him as our second, or even last priority. Then again, the first thing any little kid learns in Sunday School is that God loves everyone unconditionally. He might not love the sins they commit, but he sure loves the people, the sinners that commit them.

[Iconoclastic1]

How can God have any respect for any of the christians that make it to heaven if he knows that not a single one of them had the courage and conviction to stand up and take responsibility for their own mistakes and accept the punishment that they justly deserved, instead choosing his only begotten son as a patsy to take the rap for their misdeeds?
Why does he respect us so much? It baffles me why he cares about us at all when we continue to keep him as our second, or even last priority. Then again, the first thing any little kid learns in Sunday School is that God loves everyone unconditionally. He might not love the sins they commit, but he sure loves the people, the sinners that commit them.
You have some kind of reality disconnect that makes communication difficult. I assume you have read the bible, I assume you know about all the various examples of extremely unloving behavior demonstrated by your deity:


"ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put 10,000 to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword" (Lev. 26:7-8).

"the Lord said to Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel. And Moses said to the judges of Israel. Slay every one his men that were joined to Baal" (Num. 25:4-5).

"Vex the Midianites and smite them" (Num. 25:17).

"But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breathes. But thou shalt utterly destroy them...as the Lord thy God has commanded thee" (Deut. 20:16-17).

"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills...he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded" (Joshua 10:40).

"As I listened, god said to the others, 'Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children...." (Ezek. 9:5-6).

"And the Lord sent you on a mission, saying 'Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.'" (1 Sam. 15:18).

"Attack the land of Merathaim and those who live in Pekod. Pursue, kill and completely destroy them' declares the Lord. Do everything I have commanded you" (Jer. 50:21).

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" (1 Sam. 15:3).


Yet you persist in this childlike naivete with the insistance that God loves all unconditionally. If the God of the bible is extant, then he deserves nothing but your scorn. You don't understand why some people put him second? I don't understand why you would prostrate and debase yourself before such a brutal and malicious entity as the God of the bible. You deserve no more respect for your piety than does a bully's victim for allowing himself to be pushed around without standing up for himself.

[Lurker]

You seem to know what is bad, so you must know what is good. Give a few examples and tell me how you know that.

[Iconoclastic1]

You seem to know what is bad, so you must know what is good. Give a few examples and tell me how you know that.
You're the one that believes something can be axiomatically good, not I. I already told you in the other thread that good is a subjective term, so trying to entrap me by asking for an objective standard of goodness is pointless.

Since you asked though, I'll give my own subjective, non-axiomatic perception of what is good. I think social order and stability is desirable so actions which promote such social harmony are good, and those which detract from the same are not. I think chocolate malts are very tasty and are therefore good. I think philomathy, pacifism, and Epicureanism are good, I think cooperation is a better than competition. Just a few examples.

As to the question of how I know good from bad, well I use the as a baseline that those things which increase the aggregate health and/or happiness of the human race as a whole are good.

[darwinfish]

yay for utilitarianism!