Question About Christianity

College Confidential Community
181

<p>Yay for intellectual rigor! (not)</p>

<p>"what happens to all the good people who lived before jesus lived. Guess they're all doomed too. Sucks for them they had bad timing."</p>

<p>The harrowing of hell. Look it up.</p>

<p>"Personally, I think that whether or not someone believes in an invisible man living in the sky with no evidence whatsoever is a pretty dumb criterion for judging whether to send them to heaven or hell. This kind of arbitrary judgment is irrational, unjust, and a sign of insecurity. If God judges people based on which invisible man they pray to, then I am a much better person than he is."</p>

<p>Besides being a major metaphysical error to call God an invisible man in the sky rather than a non-corporeal entity (even if you're joking), there are far more Biblical passages that support the idea of non-Christians, provided they believe in God, being saved than passages that don't.</p>

<p>Videogamer, I'm not entirely sure what point you were trying to make - whether non-Christians will be judged by their belief in Christ or their righteousness, so sorry if I repeat your point.</p>

<p>The passage from Mark you quoted needs its context, first, which is</p>

<p>16:15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.</p>

<p>It doesn't, as most people like to say, claim that everyone that is not baptized through chance of time or place will go to hell. These are people to whom the gospel has been preached.</p>

<p>The passage you quoted from John is often shortened to that one line of 3:18, without taking into account 3:21, which speaks only of truth and light, not of the person of Jesus Christ.</p>

<p>There are other passages that speak of this, but IMO the most important is Romans 2:14-16:</p>

<p>"When Gentiles, who have not the Law do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
They should that what the Law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus."</p>

<p>It's a very harmful idea for either Christians or non-Christians to have, as it comes no where close to what the gospel preached, and leads almost inevitably to mockery like that in this thread - mockery of a pig-headed, jealous invisible man in the sky who tells people who don't adore him that they're going to go to hell. The same goes for that oft-quoted OT line, "For I thy lord am a jealous God." If you simply understand God as essentially Good, those commandments merely mean that you shouldn't worship anything that is not Good. And if Jesus is understood not only as a person but as a way, then believing in him is not a matter of believing in his person but in his principles. </p>

<p>Jerzak,
"I'm also uncomfortable with assertations of absolute religious truth; as soon as people A start judgeing people B by A's moral standards, I'd cry foul play. If only those silly western religions could leave each other alone..."</p>

<p>You're only able to cry foul play if everyone's playing the same game by the same rules. If any religion held views radically different from what's traditionally accepted (as religious commandments, common sense, genetic predispositions or cultural necessities) it would fall apart or be annihilated. I'm not talking about worshipping on Sunday or Saturday, I'm talking about "Thou shalt not honour thy father and thy mother, thou shalt commit adultery, thou shalt kill, thou shalt bear false witness, thou shalt covet what is thy neighbor's, thou shalt steal."</p>

182

<p>Psyche,</p>

<p>That's exactly how I explain why some religions, even those having little contact with each other, hold overlapping views. Religion evolves, just as culture evolves, just as humans evolve. The fittest religions survived, and the basis for their survival was that of conforming to society's needs, which in turn conforms to humans' needs. All humans are basically alike; thus, we have religious continuity. (A society whose religion promoted murder probably wouldn't last very long, so virtually all religions condemn murder.)</p>

<p>That said, what conclusions can we draw about the intrinsic moralness of a religion's morals? Does the fact that, say, not honoring thy father and mother leads to a destructive society mean that not following this is actually morally wrong in the sense that some universal creator says 'shame on you'? I tend to think not - I'd say that this was just an easy way for a society to form out of anarchy. Organized religion has served its purpose. It's sad that we still have the negative aspects left over to fight each other.</p>

<p>So with regards to crying foul play, most religions are in pretty much the same ballpark (especially the western ones, which all come from, fundamentally, the same root). And setting all of the heavy moral stuff aside, it’s always seemed to me that the religions that fight each other fight over the petty things. The Protestants and Catholics will argue whether the consecrated host is actually Jesus, or a symbol of Jesus. The Muslims and Christians basically squabble about whether Jesus or Muhammad (don't yell at me... I failed spelling) is better. When you step back and look at it all, it just seems unlikely that one of them is right and the other is wrong - who's to say they're not both right, or, more likely, both way off base? I don't know, I just think we should all step outside of our sectarian boxes when it comes to religion, and try to look at things as objectively as we can. Yay for the bottom-up approach!</p>

183

<p>Jerzak,</p>

<p>I won't get into the origins of religion, but here are a few questions for you:
Why does the effect of leading to a good, loving society diminish the morality of religious commands? You can't have it two ways, either God's commands are petty and serve no purpose and the man who follows them for no reason is a fool, or else they are vital and perfectly reasonable, and the man who does not follow them is a fool. Virtue, especially Christian virtue, is based on your actions towards others, society is at the heart of Christianity, it is not a by-product of it.</p>

<p>(Okay, I will get into the origins of religion a little.) The fundamental problem in saying that religion (and/or morality) is the product/tool of people trying to create a society that will work and rise above anarchy is that certain moral principles must precede it. Sure, as long as your survival depends on the society's well-being, morality and religion can be seen as a matter of necessity. At this point your concern is not society, but yourself. However, when by fortune you are no longer at the mercy of others, when you have the power to do whatever you want and can ignore every commandment you wish but choose not to, you are not acting as any instinctive animal would (survival), but placing something else (society) above yourself. Religion is, thus, society.</p>

<p>And, how does your latest post compare to what you posted earlier: "I'm uncomfortable with assertations of absolute religious truth." Either any of the commandments we mentioned, murder, honoring your parents, is good (as well as beneficial to society), or it is not. We seem to agree on the basics, so why is it unacceptable to judge by these moral standards? (Unless you're referring to what's petty, in which case I completely agree with you.)</p>

184

<p>Psyche,</p>

<p>As to the first paragraph, I'm basically splitting hairs here over how to view the moral commandments of a given religion. I'm not saying that following commandments is foolish; I'm saying that a more mature society would look at the rules objectively and from their experience of reality choose whether to follow that given rule. Because certainly, there are rules that need to be re-evaluated with changing times, and evaluation of each one is the only way I can think of to do it. Accept nothing, question everything.</p>

<p>And that's really the core of my beliefs: Question everything. If your questioning disproves a moral, accept that and re-evaluate the premise of that moral. If it supports the moral, all that's been done is that moral has been strengthened. I worry that these days, too much (almost all) of discussion between peoples of different faiths is bickering; I'd say we should all be questioning. </p>

<p>When society was more primitive, it needed something simple (You'll go to hell if you don't do X) to get its inhabitants to follow rules that were for their own good. I'd much prefer a society, however, that did not need what are, in my view, somewhat artificial constructs to do what was good for them. (Example: The Jewish Kosher laws kept people healthy. I would rather see people following the laws than not, but I'd be even happier if they were following them not because their religion said so, but because they drew the conclusion that it made them healthier.)</p>

<p>As to your second paragraph, we are rarely ever not at the mercy of others. I can name maybe one: Henry David Thoreau. Pretty much everyone else is completely intertwined in their society, however it is set up. I believe human beings are generally greedy and egocentric. (Oh, there are a few exceptions. And I truly don't say this with negative connotations behind the words 'greedy' and 'egocentric' - I just think it accurately portrays how humans operate. We experience life from a first person perspective, so our concern is almost always to the first person.) However, humans realize (I hope) that what is in society’s interests is usually in theirs. Even religion follows this to an extent. I disagree that certain moral principals must precede a society; before society, we were simply animals (albeit with potential). </p>

<p>And as to the third, I regard absolute religious truth as something that more or less claims to be an end unto itself. It is good to have a non-murdering society; that is more or less absolute. The religious part, for me, comes in with the construct behind the moral premise upon which we all basically agree. The religious truth would be the whole heaven/hell/set of consequences/ afterlife part, which no one has ever really experienced. When you start claiming absolute truth regarding that, I become highly skeptical. Until a dead person comes back and talks to me about what the afterlife is like (if there is any, that is), and if they were actually punished for, say, having an abortion, I refuse to set in my mind a set of beliefs behind it. Different cultures and religions have different sets of
values. To issue a blanket statement saying, for example: “Abortion is Morally Wrong for Everybody” is at once extreme and belittling. Those are the kinds of absolute religious truths I don’t accept. To say something helps society is one thing; to say it’s moral is more sweeping and universal, and necisarily applies to all humanity, without regard to things like cultural background, personal background, etc. </p>

<p>sorry if this rambles a little; I tend to lose focus late at night.</p>

<p>To anyone out there: if you ever die, please write a book on the subject. I’d be delighted to read about your experiences.</p>

185

<p>“Accept nothing, question everything.”</p>

<p>Is this an absolute decree you’ve derived from a God which you believe to exist; or is it a principal of logic, such as ‘non-contradiction’ or ‘modus ponens, or the law of identity?’ </p>

<p>If not where does it derive its status as an absolute imperative (even if, in a solipsistic way, only for yourself)? Should we then, therefore, “accept nothing” including your statement, because of your statement; and should we “question everything” including your statement, because of your statement?</p>

<p>Isn’t this a silly version of the classic:</p>

<p>“This sentence is not true.”</p>

<p>You go on to say, “that's really the core of my beliefs”</p>

<p>Really?</p>

<p>you say,
“I disagree that certain moral principals must precede a society”</p>

<p>Try this,
“the opposite of the moral imperative, “it is wrong to rape someone,” is true.</p>

<p>If the moral prohibition against rape is merely a social construct you should be able to, with a force of will, believe the opposite of this statement, that</p>

<p>--It is morally correct to rape anyone, if there is enough physical pleasure to be derived from the raping (or some other, equally immoral, justification)—or, if this offends your sensibilities, try this,
'it is morally correct for SOMEONE ELSE to rape someone.'</p>

<p>Try it. I'm quite sure you can’t; Because you have, inherent to your humanity, moral absolutes that you refer to when considering this particular physical act (which, I should add, would have no morality attached to it as-such if it were simply a social construct socially accepted while evolving from animals, as you claim). </p>

<p>You say,
“It is good to have a non-murdering society; that is more or less absolute.”</p>

<p>More or less absolute?! What do you think absolute means, anyhow?</p>

<p>you say,
“The religious part, for me, comes in with the construct behind the moral premise upon which we all basically agree.”</p>

<p>It is not that we “basically agree” it’s that anyone of us in any given time or place knows it is absolutely wrong—always and absolutely, it has nothing to do with agreement, unless we mean to say ‘yes’ agrees with ‘yes’, or 2+2 agrees with ‘4’.</p>

<p>you then say,
“To say something helps society is one thing; to say it’s moral is more sweeping and universal, and necisarily applies to all humanity, without regard to things like cultural background, personal background, etc.”</p>

<p>Would that include, as in the above, rape; are prohibitions against rape to “sweeping and universal”?</p>

<p>Or is it an absolute moral imperative?
If it is, we have a serious problem with your social construct and ‘artificial construct’ theories of morality and conscience.</p>

186

<p>huh? rape and murder are definitely immoral, not because god says so but because they would hurt society. if everyone went around raping/murdering people, there would be chaos. basically the golden rule is "treat everyone how you want to be treated", because if everyone did that the world would be a much kinder, more compassionate, more cooperative place. people wouldnt infringe on the rights of others. would you want to be raped? would you want your mother/sister/friend to be raped? didn't think so, so don't do it to anybody else.</p>

<p>you can accept or question jerzat's statement if you wish. i think what s/he meant was "don't accept anything blindly" which is a great code to live by.</p>

187

<p>"the golden rule is "treat everyone how you want to be treated"</p>

<p>The 'Golden Rule' is a religious moral code, if I am not mistaken. And it is far easier to talk about the moral relativism of polite behavior than to have to account for 'evil' acts like rape; thing's become a bit less relative and fuzzy, don't they.</p>

<p>I am a woman, I not only would not liked to be raped, but believe that is always wrong, in any country, culture, time or place to rape anyone; that is to say, I do not believe it is either socially-relative or a social construct; because to imply that it is a social construct is to say that it may be ok under, or in, the right country, culture, time or place--which it isn't and never will be. Thus it is absolute and not a matter of social agreement.</p>

<p>If so perverted a society, for its own demented reasons, decide to institute a punitive policy of rape for say, criminals, would it then be ok? How about the Nazis (how can we say they were morally wrong, if it is a matter of social agreement)? Is it a matter of social agreement or is it absolutely wrong in all times and places and under any circumstances even if the whole world, deluded upon imbibing relativistic ‘Kool-aid’ begins to believe it is right?</p>

<p>If it is absolute, there are then, therefore, absolutes as such: rape is ‘ABSOLUTELY’ wrong and immoral, and now we only need to understand that for something to be absolute it is not a matter of social agreement, but an absolute moral imperative. Period: No social agreement can contradict it.</p>

<p>As to “Question everything” it is an illogical statement and ethic. Give it a try. Question everything.</p>

<ol>
<li> Prove to yourself, mathematically and by observation, that the earth is a globe.</li>
<li> That gravity has a mathematical formula and that it is a rule</li>
<li> That Stars exist as stars not heavenly spheres</li>
<li> That you were born and yesterday is not just wishful thinking</li>
<li> That you will cease to exist</li>
<li> That you “think therefore you exist”</li>
<li> That you are awake and not dreaming</li>
<li> That you are not alone in the world</li>
<li> That there is a real person typing this</li>
<li>That those who say they love you actually, in fact, love you and exist</li>
<li>That there is or is not a God—scientifically</li>
<li>That history did not begin with your birth or end when the Spice girls broke up.</li>
<li>that every immoral act is personally wrong before not committing the act
13+. etc.</li>
</ol>

<p>Few do, pretty much nobody; it is a lazy device to disprove what you cannot otherwise disprove factually or logically. If you don’t believe something, simply say so. If you can prove it is wrong, do it (perhaps you will, but you'll be a very busy lady--no time for watching The Simpsons). But what’s with the hyperbole of such holier-than-thou grandstanding?</p>

188

<p>
[QUOTE]
Videogamer, as I have argued, that kind of a criterion for salvation is just horrible.

[/QUOTE]

You just described the beliefs that I believe in the very core of my soul as "horrible." I find that VERY offensive. You can disagree but do not degrade or insult without any basis whatsoever.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
Whether or not I have blind faith in your God has absolutely no bearing on how good a person I am,

[/QUOTE]

You seem very set in your ways. Expand your mind, and think out of the mere realm of selfishness. What is good? Good is a judgment. A judgment requires a judge. The judge in this instance is yourself. The judge at the time of judgment is God, not yourself. What you believe is meaningless. There is only truth! Beliefs are not instrinsically true, they are PERCEPTIONS of what is true.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
or whether I would deserve salvation, and regardless, if God existed, I wouldn't want him sending people to heaven or hell based on their actions at all, since it inherently destroys the concept of freedom.

[/QUOTE]

First, it doesn't matter what you want. The ultimate force in the universe bends not to what you want. Second, He doesn't send people to paradise or damnation based on actions, He does it based on faith. The freedom of choice to believe in God is the ultimate freedom. Any other perceptions of freedom are illusions. Ultimately, man has limits. You could say that in theory, man can do nearly anything in the universe, given time. Is it possible to do everything? No. THAT is the inherent limit of freedom, and in that is God.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

Your Bible verses simply reinforce my contempt for Christianity.

[/QUOTE]

The Bible is based completely on love. Only a fool would feel contemptuous about love.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
I am reminded of the words of George Carlin: We need one additional commandment--KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF!

[/QUOTE]

I am reminded of the words of King Solomon, Proverbs 1:22:</p>

<p>22 "How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
It doesn't, as most people like to say, claim that everyone that is not baptized through chance of time or place will go to hell. These are people to whom the gospel has been preached.

[/QUOTE]

It says that the gospel should be preached to all of creation. It pretty much has. Really, almost anybody today except for perhaps some aborigines has access to the Word. Therefore, nearly every person is bound by the doctrine. Certainly, it applies to everyone in the western nations.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]

The 'Golden Rule' is a religious moral code, if I am not mistaken. And it is far easier to talk about the moral relativism of polite behavior than to have to account for 'evil' acts like rape; thing's become a bit less relative and fuzzy, don't they.</p>

<p>I am a woman, I not only would not liked to be raped, but believe that is always wrong, in any country, culture, time or place to rape anyone; that is to say, I do not believe it is either socially-relative or a social construct; because to imply that it is a social construct is to say that it may be ok under, or in, the right country, culture, time or place--which it isn't and never will be. Thus it is absolute and not a matter of social agreement.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is religious, in fact common to nearly every religion in history (Christianity was the first to assert the positive "do unto others..." instead of "do not do unto others..." which changes the association from passive to active).
I don't like how people are basically reducing religion to socialism.</p>

189

<p>"It says that the gospel should be preached to all of creation. It pretty much has. Really, almost anybody today except for perhaps some aborigines has access to the Word. Therefore, nearly every person is bound by the doctrine. Certainly, it applies to everyone in the western nations."</p>

<p>I agree completely. The objection that I was responding to is that those who never heard of Christ or lived before Christ are damned. Certainly it wasn't true that everyone had been preached the gospel a few centuries ago, or that the Yanomamis know it today, which is the objection raised.</p>

<p>Jerzak,
"As to your second paragraph, we are rarely ever not at the mercy of others. I can name maybe one: Henry David Thoreau. Pretty much everyone else is completely intertwined in their society, however it is set up. I believe human beings are generally greedy and egocentric. (Oh, there are a few exceptions. And I truly don't say this with negative connotations behind the words 'greedy' and 'egocentric' - I just think it accurately portrays how humans operate. We experience life from a first person perspective, so our concern is almost always to the first person.) However, humans realize (I hope) that what is in society’s interests is usually in theirs. Even religion follows this to an extent. I disagree that certain moral principals must precede a society; before society, we were simply animals (albeit with potential)."</p>

<p>I didn't mean a Thoreau style emancipation. I meant if there are no consequences. If you are thinking only of your own gain, as morality as a type of contract, then as soon as it is not in your interest to do what is best for society, the contract disappears. If you know you can get away with stealing - what stops you? If you can get away with murder - what stops you? If you can rape someone - what stops you? Why do unto your neighbors as you would have them do unto you if there's nothing in it for you? What if your society asks that you die for it?</p>

<p>It isn't true that what is beneficial to society is always beneficial to you. All of these laws are restrictions on your (animal) desires to indulge in sensual pleasure. The only way you gain from these laws is that they stop people from murdering you, stealing from you or raping you. Okay, what if there is no chance of that happening? What if you're absolutely protected? Does power always corrupt because there is no other reason to be moral? (Like the story of Gyge's Ring)</p>

<p>This sort of contract is hardly morality - it is self interest. The roots of morality are emotional values - that society is good (not useful), that truth is good (not useful), that honor is good (not useful), that beauty is good (not useful). If these values are not inherent and do not precede society, then society is a flimsy construct depending on our own dependence. Valuing society requires far more virtue than has been said until now.</p>

<p>Sure, question particular laws. After all, there are moral advances (such as the progression from "do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you" to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), but do not question the principles behind them. </p>

<p>"And as to the third, I regard absolute religious truth as something that more or less claims to be an end unto itself. It is good to have a non-murdering society; that is more or less absolute. The religious part, for me, comes in with the construct behind the moral premise upon which we all basically agree. The religious truth would be the whole heaven/hell/set of consequences/ afterlife part, which no one has ever really experienced. When you start claiming absolute truth regarding that, I become highly skeptical. Until a dead person comes back and talks to me about what the afterlife is like (if there is any, that is), and if they were actually punished for, say, having an abortion, I refuse to set in my mind a set of beliefs behind it. Different cultures and religions have different sets of values. To issue a blanket statement saying, for example: “Abortion is Morally Wrong for Everybody” is at once extreme and belittling. Those are the kinds of absolute religious truths I don’t accept. To say something helps society is one thing; to say it’s moral is more sweeping and universal, and necisarily applies to all humanity, without regard to things like cultural background, personal background, etc. "</p>

<p>Yes, that is exactly it. Morality is an end unto itself, not a means. I agree with FountainSiren's reply to your stance regarding absolutes.
I will add only a continuation of what I said before in reponse to "religious truths." You have almost stated the principle behind them. If, as Ivan Karamazov pointed out, there is no God nor eternal soul, then "all is permitted." THEN morality is merely useful, not good. THEN, as random, selfish collisions of atoms, there is no chance for society. If there is nothing lasting, if our sense impressions are all that matter, then there is no morality.</p>

190

<p>Psyche,</p>

<p>"It isn't true that what is beneficial to society is always beneficial to you. All of these laws are restrictions on your (animal) desires to indulge in sensual pleasure. The only way you gain from these laws is that they stop people from murdering you, stealing from you or raping you. Okay, what if there is no chance of that happening? What if you're absolutely protected?"</p>

<p>You're right that sometimes your interests and society's are at odds. When no one's looking, I think you still tend to follow what is 'right' because of, basically, habit. Since birth we experience our culture, and it just starts getting pounded into us over and over until we just follow it. I'm almost certian that a child not raised in our society (let's just say he was raised by bears, or something [isn't there some sort of children's book about that?]) would lack all of our values and morals. </p>

<p>Even in the most extreme example within our society, murder, we're not 100 percent unanimous that it is wrong. Some Christians think that society should murder those who murder. And we're about 50/50 split over abortion (something the pro-lifers would consider absolutly morally wrong, while others say no, it's not).</p>

<p>There are very few morals that we all agree on. Murder in most circumstances, Rape, and Theft are pretty universal (and, as I've made clear, I attribute this not to some divine power but to religious darwinism)... but beyond that, we have extreme diversity. So when I talk about moral absolutes, 95 percent of the time my focus is on things that i consider, well, more petty. I don't think anyone can conculsively make the moral judgement that, for example, sodomy is wrong. Or drug use. Or not going to church. In summary, I guess you'd say that I don't really beleive in moral absolutes, but I appreciate a smoothly run society as much as the next guy, so we need some basic laws like murder, rape, theft (even though I'm not sure that I think of them as Moral in the sense of fire and brimestone and God's wrath in the afterlife).</p>

<p>And, finally, the questioning of everything: I realize that questioning every single thing will bog you down with more questions you can answer. But, FountainSiren, every one of your 13 questions should at least be asked. Some of the more pertinent questions are those for which there are no answers. I can see the confusion in my "accept nothing" phrase... so i'll add another word, one that LisaSimpsonReborn reasonably inferred: Accept nothing blindly. Its when we stop questioning, to borrow from Nietzsche, we see the death of God. I, for one, beleive that should God exist, he or she or it would much prefer a world of agnostic secular humanists than one of evangelical christians who have never questioned anything.</p>

191

<p>JKerzak525, you said:</p>

<p>"should God exist, he or she or it would much prefer a world of agnostic secular humanists than one of evangelical christians who have never questioned anything."</p>

<p>This statement has less validity than any fairy tale or racist propaganda I have ever heard. It is self-evidently false and bigoted and unworthy of any reasonable person. </p>

<p>Unless you have determined, through some field study or survey, that evangelical Christians in fact question nothing it is, moreover, a lie.</p>

<p>Do you also have some wisdom to share with us on what 'gays' always do or don't do?</p>

<p>How about Jews, are there specific things they do and don't do that we should know about and be leery of?</p>

<p>How about Afro-Americans and La Rasa…I’ve heard stories from people like you?</p>

<p>How about those Muslims…ooh?</p>

<p>How about secular humanists and socialists?</p>

<p>How about atheists, you know, like Stalin and Mao and their psychopathic and amoral lemmings..they didn't much care for Christians either...killed quite a few--millions according to historians who are interested in these sort of things?</p>

<p>How about the disabled, any news?</p>

<p>This is bigotry plan and simple, and unworthy of any reasonable person.</p>

<p>What do you think? Anymore unfounded and bigoted stereotypes you’d like to share with the class?</p>

<p>Martin Luther King was an evangelical Christian…someone shot him, probably thought he was an ignorant guy and a bad sort.</p>

<p>Do you figure he didn’t question anything either?</p>

<p>By the way, I’m not a Christian in any sense you would understand, but I am also not a bigot.</p>

192

<p>FountianSiren:</p>

<p>Quite the rant.</p>

<p>I didn't mean to imply that ALL evangelical christains don't question anything. That's why I further described the people in my make-beleive world as evangelical christians "who have never challenged anything (narrowing the scope from all evangelical christians to those who don't question)." </p>

<p>I go to a christian school. 90% of the people with whom I go to school are christians, many of whom are evangelical. I've had more experience with evangelical christians and catholics than I care to recall. And in my experience I've found that many, not all, but many of the evgangelical christians beleive that the world is 6000 years old, we're all common descendants of adam and eve, and darwinism is stupid. I wouldn't be surprised if one day one of them contended that the world was, in fact, flat. Or decree that instead of going to the doctor, we could just pray and our cancer would go away. I've spend hours upon hours arguing with them, presenting them with pages and pages of scientific evidence. Did they listen? grudgingly. Did they give it a second thought? no. </p>

<p>Now, I'll be the first to say that there are evangelical christians who are open and rational. I'll also gladly say that there are many atheists who are just as unquestioning and closed-minded. I merely used evangelical christians in that particular make-beleive world to illistrate my contention that God would rather have humans who question, and think rationally and critically than those who blindly accept things. It was a matter of questioning vs non-questioning, and evangelical christians are the people of whom I most see, in my admittedly limited experience, not questioning. </p>

<p>I'm saying, agree or disagree, that questioning is, in my view, preferable. I'm sorry that you misunderstood the jist of my assertation. </p>

<p>In fact, just for you, I'll use different metaphors. I, for one, beleive that should God exist, he or she or it would much prefer a world of questioning and skeptical christians than one of atheists who have never questioned anything.</p>

<p>And by the way, try me about the not understanding your type of christianity. I get exposed to a whole lot of christians in my day.</p>

193

<p>By the way, Jesus' teachings have been severely corrupted over the many, many years.</p>

<p>John and Paul claim that you must accept Christ as your Savior to be "saved". Jesus never makes such claims; his words were different. The gospel of Thomas (which has the most authoritative teachings of Christ) has been eliminated many years ago during those wars. Today's Christianity should be called Johnism or Paulism. </p>

<p>Christianity has been led astray. Trust me.</p>

194

<p>Videogamer (mostly):</p>

<p>"You just described the beliefs that I believe in the very core of my soul as "horrible." I find that VERY offensive. You can disagree but do not degrade or insult without any basis whatsoever."</p>

<p>I did not attack you personally. I simply indicated my feelings toward the idea that we are judged based on whether we accept a set of beliefs--some of them directly contradicted by observation--with no basis whatsoever. I find this horrible, for very good reason: the implication is that blind obedience is encouraged and knowledge and thruth-seeking are punished. It's 1984 all over again: "War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength." If you ask me, your God is just a glorified Big Brother. (Don't try to weasel out of this by stating that "God IS Truth" or something like that. If he were, and he judged us based on our belief in him, then he would be rationally and ethically bound to make his existence more evident.)</p>

<p>"The judge at the time of judgment is God, not yourself. What you believe is meaningless."
"First, it doesn't matter what you want. The ultimate force in the universe bends not to what you want. Second, He doesn't send people to paradise or damnation based on actions, He does it based on faith. The freedom of choice to believe in God is the ultimate freedom. Any other perceptions of freedom are illusions."</p>

<p>If this is true, I have no reason to live and should kill myself right now, since I obviously have no freedom and no chance of independence from the yoke of divine oppression (man, that's a cool phrase). Furthermore, if this is the nature of God, then I HATE GOD, since this description is obviously that of an irrational, sadistic, freedom-hating tyrant, not a benevolent force of any kind. If God is moral BY DEFINITION, then morality is a simple tautology (and logically, he cannot exist, but we've covered this). You are obviously much more nihilistic than I am.</p>

<p>Additionally, I don't see why we can't just agree that murder and rape are bad. This doesn't need to be revealed to us by some divine force. I think principles like the Golden Rule are perfectly rational and can be established without the need for God. At this point, it's just Occam's Razor--don't multiply entities unnecessarily. (I just realized that I sound a lot like Ayn Rand. Believe me, though, I'm no Objectivist--I think my hatred of capitalism pretty much disqualifies me) :)</p>

<p>Your Bible verses do not reflect love in any form with which I am familiar. Rather, they exhibit their precise intent--control of people brainwashed enough to believe that their purpose in life is to abandon all semblance of self and acquiesce to the rule of others.</p>

<p>As for the "question everything" argument, my view is this:
I don't believe anything is truly knowable in the strictest sense of the word, so I may be deemed a skeptic. However, if reality is an illusion, then nothing matters anyway, so I act under the assumption that it is not. Metaphysically, I am a skeptic. Realistically, I am an empiricist. Basically, I agree with Bertrand Russell: "What science cannot tell us, mankind cannot know."</p>

<p>"I am reminded of the words of King Solomon, Proverbs 1:22:</p>

<p>22 "How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?"</p>

<p>Not a day goes by that I don't wonder that about Christianity. By the way, thank you for demonstrating what I have argued all along--that George Carlin has exactly as much divine authority as the Bible. Face it, the only functional difference between a religion and a cult is the number of people who believe it. In fact, I'd take George over God any day--at least he's funny :)</p>

<p>A Side Note:
Jerzak, I find your concept of a Darwinian model for religions intriguing. I believe this could be the basis of a most enlightening discussion. If you would like, we can make a new thread about this theory.</p>

195

<p>Baller, Christianity hasn't been led astray. It was never on course to begin with.</p>

196

<p>And Darwin sucks. 'nuff said.</p>

197

<p>
[quote]
And Darwin sucks. 'nuff said.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I guess it's enough to say for you, since you are willfully contradicting all scientific evidence, but I rely on rational argument to establish my opinions. Not to mention that my position, no matter how well supported, remains an opinion, whereas you contradict a scientific fact (unless the world doesn't exist, in keeping with my skeptic roots).</p>

198

<p>darwin sucks. 'nuff said. <a href="http://www.darwinismrefuted.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.darwinismrefuted.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.evolutiondeceit.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.evolutiondeceit.com&lt;/a> <a href="http://www.darwinism-watch.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.darwinism-watch.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

199

<p>Save your pseudoscience bull****. I refuse to be dragged into this most idiotic of debates.</p>

200

<p>Try not to bash Darwin and his discovery of the science of evolution.</p>

<p>That is the only solid proof of life and its course. Evolution is very credible and real. It has happened and we have more solid proof for connecting this to the origin of life than anything else. </p>

<p>Science is the reason we are here today. If it were up to all the religious people, we wouldn't have advanced in society. It is because of scientists that we have the luxury of modern lifestyle, not because of priests.</p>

<p>If it were up to religious people, we'd still have things like the Spanish inquisition going on. Science is what brings us to reality. It is what makes us more human and sane. The age of rationalism has been the real blessing to us, not the "age of enlightnment".</p>

<p>Darwin gave more logic and reasoning to the course and origin of humans than anyone.</p>