Theology

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
I guess i'm not getting how that is different than what I said? My "special creatures" comment revolves around a deity ruling over our souls. Again, I don't see why it is arrogant for someone to believe that there is no deity in another existence that specifically makes decisions on an afterlife.

Because that's not what atheism is. Atheism rejects that concept of a deity you just expressed. But atheism also rejects every single concept of any being with characteristics beyond our comprehension. That's what's arrogant.

Most atheists use a line of reasoning in justifying their beliefs that goes something like "there is no proof of a god, therefor I'm an atheist." That's logically flawed. The conclusion doesn't follow the premise. Atheists also have no proof that there ISN'T a god. So -- using their own flawed logic -- you could just as easily say "there is no proof that there ISN'T a god, therefor I'm NOT an atheist."

Again, in-and-of-itself rejection of major religions and existing pro-deity belief sets is NOT atheism. That's agnosticism.

I fail to see how an atheist's lack of belief in deities doesn't directly correlate to perceived afterlife?

I guess that is what I am asking. In a vacuum, what specifically is wrong with the core concept of atheism (the belief that no deities exist)?

Wooly, I'll try to post more after work today. I've got bow out for the next couple hours and this is really too big of a topic to write short on.
 

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
So let me get this straight. God created the Heavens and the Earth, and Hell.

In hell, he created a place for people who don't follow him to burn and be tortured for ever and ever and ever. If you don't follow him, you're toast. Worse than toast even.

He also created the largest variable which determines whether you're a Christian or not: geography on his Earth. People on one side of the mountain are Christians, people on the other side...never heard of it. People on one side of the ocean are Christians, people on the other side...what's a Christ? People on one side of the desert are Christians, people on the other side...Huh? Jesus?

So God creates the rules on which you're judged, and the geography preventing you from being informed of those rules, and the place where you're tortured for eternity for not following the rules you couldn't follow because you never heard of his ahh nevermind fuck it this is stupid.

That's where the call for evangelization comes in. It is the duty of the Christian to spread the Word of God.
 

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,536
Reaction score
3,287
That's where the call for evangelization comes in. It is the duty of the Christian to spread the Word of God.

But what about the poor little girl who never heard the Word of God before she dies for whatever reason? Burning in Hell because she never heard the message?

I know many Christians say different things for this scenario. I've heard it range from yes, she burns in Hell, to she will be seated with the Lord since she never knew better, and anything in between.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
That's where the call for evangelization comes in. It is the duty of the Christian to spread the Word of God.

So why did god put millions of people in the Americas who lived and died for thousands of years before they heard of him? And why did god send slave traders to find them? And why did he set it up so that Europeans brought not only his word but diseases which killed >90% of them right after they come in contact with the people bringing them the one thing that can save their souls?

The diseases thing always gets me. We have stories of Jesus curing people of their diseases, which we know the locals figured were a curse and such, but he doesn't point out to them "guys guys guys, these illnesses are microscopic things called "germs." You have to be super sanitary and prevent them from killing you. Don't shit in water you drink; in fact, boil it just to be safe. Rodents and such carry germs everywhere, so be careful. Also, although I did cure a handful of you and that was really A+ on my part, these germs are technically living organisms and thus, yeah, I did create them. I created the diseases that give many of you horrible horrible deaths. That's just the way it is. Deal with it."
 
Last edited:

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Why is it the same guys who are arguing in the politics thread are arguing in the religion thread?

YOU GUYS MUST BE LOADS OF FUN AT PARTIES AND FAMILY GATHERINGS!!!!!!
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,928
Reaction score
6,159
The article below is beyond me to comprehend. I don't know if the right term for it is arrogance, stupidity, appalling, disgusting, mentally deranged, or mind-boggling ignorance... or all of the above. One of the most erroneous opinions most Christians seem to have about atheists is that atheism = amorality, and that atheists have no ethics, morals, or sense of right & wrong.

'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson hypothesizes about atheist family being raped and killed | AL.com

Phil Robertson is making waves again after the "Duck Dynasty" star made some severe and graphic comments about atheists at a prayer breakfast event on Friday.

As the featured speaker during the event in Vero Beach, Fla., Robertson spoke of a hypothetical situation where the family of an atheist was raped and killed in front of him, and how the atheist would rationalize the act, reports the Huffington Post. Organizers said his intended point was that atheists can not define what's right and wrong.


"I'll make a bet with you," Robertson said. "Two guys break into an atheist's home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him.

And then they can look at him and say, 'Isn't it great that I don't have to worry about being judged? Isn't it great that there's nothing wrong with this? There's no right or wrong, now is it dude?'"

Robertson continued by saying even if the criminals dismembered the atheist, he would have no argument because he does not have a sense of goodness.

"'Wouldn't it be something if this [sic] was something wrong with this? But you're the one who says there is no God, there's no right, there's no wrong, so we're just having fun. We're sick in the head, have a nice day,'" said Robertson.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Why is it the same guys who are arguing in the politics thread are arguing in the religion thread?

YOU GUYS MUST BE LOADS OF FUN AT PARTIES AND FAMILY GATHERINGS!!!!!!

For that reason I don't go to parties where they talk about religion, eg mass. haha
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
It really drives me nuts that even within Christianity there are a myriad of different views. The idea of what Christianity is has mutated and individualized itself to spread. No longer is it the Church saying "dammit believe this and only this!" it's now, for many (most?), "read the Bible and form your relationship with Jesus Christ" which is code for "make it up for yourself in your head and don't be rude enough to question it out-loud." On this board, with thousands of members, we have thousands of idiosyncratic views of Jesus and Christianity. The religion isn't even strong enough to develop a singular position. That's a red flag for me.

Christianity was strong enough to develop and maintain a singular position for 1500 years. During that period (and even since then), it has been the strongest civilizing force in human history. And that's also why I'd argue that the Reformation was the greatest tragedy that has ever befallen mankind. Unfortunately we're selfish animals, and the siren song of individualism is hard to resist.

The diseases thing always gets me. We have stories of Jesus curing people of their diseases, which we know the locals figured were a curse and such, but he doesn't point out to them "guys guys guys, these illnesses are microscopic things called "germs." You have to be super sanitary and prevent them from killing you. Don't shit in water you drink; in fact, boil it just to be safe. Rodents and such carry germs everywhere, so be careful. Also, although I did cure a handful of you and that was really A+ on my part, these germs are technically living organisms and thus, yeah, I did create them. I created the diseases that give many of you horrible horrible deaths. That's just the way it is. Deal with it."

That would be a compelling critique of Christianity, were it not for the doctrine of Original Sin (which extends to the fallen state of Nature) and the very un-Progressive purpose of creation. Christ did not come so that humanity could someday realize a Roddenberry-esque techno-utopia. Creation will not be perfected until the Second Coming. Which is why every utopian ideology which aims to recreate Eden here on earth invariably results in atrocity.
 
Last edited:

yankeeND

!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Messages
4,607
Reaction score
255
The article below is beyond me to comprehend. I don't know if the right term for it is arrogance, stupidity, appalling, disgusting, mentally deranged, or mind-boggling ignorance... or all of the above. One of the most erroneous opinions most Christians seem to have about atheists is that atheism = amorality, and that atheists have no ethics, morals, or sense of right & wrong.

'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson hypothesizes about atheist family being raped and killed | AL.com

Phil Robertson is making waves again after the "Duck Dynasty" star made some severe and graphic comments about atheists at a prayer breakfast event on Friday.

As the featured speaker during the event in Vero Beach, Fla., Robertson spoke of a hypothetical situation where the family of an atheist was raped and killed in front of him, and how the atheist would rationalize the act, reports the Huffington Post. Organizers said his intended point was that atheists can not define what's right and wrong.


"I'll make a bet with you," Robertson said. "Two guys break into an atheist's home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him.

And then they can look at him and say, 'Isn't it great that I don't have to worry about being judged? Isn't it great that there's nothing wrong with this? There's no right or wrong, now is it dude?'"

Robertson continued by saying even if the criminals dismembered the atheist, he would have no argument because he does not have a sense of goodness.

"'Wouldn't it be something if this [sic] was something wrong with this? But you're the one who says there is no God, there's no right, there's no wrong, so we're just having fun. We're sick in the head, have a nice day,'" said Robertson.

The thing that is sad to me is that Robertson has a platform and a following that eats that shit up. There are plenty of things that are wrong with the world, and he is definitely one of them. His concept of what is and what isn't is definitely skewed.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
That would be a compelling critique of Christianity, were it not for the doctrine of Original Sin (which extends to the fallen state of Nature) and the very un-Progressive purpose of creation. Christ did not come so that humanity could someday realize a Roddenberry-esque techno-utopia. Creation will not be perfected until the Second Coming. Which is why every utopian ideology which aims to recreate Eden here on earth invariably results in atrocity.

I think the "can't be perfect" is an excuse though. Imperfection would still be ubiquitous in the form of greed, murder, rape, and general human imperfection. Diseases created by god to torment humans are an additional "fuck you" to the world that don't have basis in Original Sin, in my view. I guess I just don't see the presence of smallpox as a direct result of eating a Knowledge Apple.

What is Catholicism's current position on Original Sin anyway? Specifically that Adam and Eve really walked around. They, if I'm correct, view stories like Noah as metaphors. If they viewed the story of Adam and Eve as such, how does the Church handle basing such a profound part of the world on a metaphor. I'm legitimately and respectfully asking.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I think the "can't be perfect" is an excuse though. Imperfection would still be ubiquitous in the form of greed, murder, rape, and general human imperfection. Diseases created by god to torment humans are an additional "fuck you" to the world that don't have basis in Original Sin, in my view. I guess I just don't see the presence of smallpox as a direct result of eating a Knowledge Apple.

What is Catholicism's current position on Original Sin anyway? Specifically that Adam and Eve really walked around. They, if I'm correct, view stories like Noah as metaphors. If they viewed the story of Adam and Eve as such, how does the Church handle basing such a profound part of the world on a metaphor. I'm legitimately and respectfully asking.

Here's a good summary of Church doctrine on Original Sin.
 

Wingman Ray

Banned
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
110
So let me get this straight. God created the Heavens and the Earth, and Hell.

In hell, he created a place for people who don't follow him to burn and be tortured for ever and ever and ever. If you don't follow him, you're toast. Worse than toast even.

He also created the largest variable which determines whether you're a Christian or not: geography on his Earth. People on one side of the mountain are Christians, people on the other side...never heard of it. People on one side of the ocean are Christians, people on the other side...what's a Christ? People on one side of the desert are Christians, people on the other side...Huh? Jesus?

So God creates the rules on which you're judged, and the geography preventing you from being informed of those rules, and the place where you're tortured for eternity for not following the rules you couldn't follow because you never heard of his ahh nevermind fuck it this is stupid.

Now my man whiskey will be along with a rebuttal I can summarize as such:

oNObxMf.gif


But that's more or less how millions of Evangelicals see it, and I think he'd agree and join me in criticism of them. So at a minimum that's enough for me to hold the position of "don't tell me what you all think because you guys don't even have your story straight."

It really drives me nuts that even within Christianity there are a myriad of different views. The idea of what Christianity is has mutated and individualized itself to spread. No longer is it the Church saying "dammit believe this and only this!" it's now, for many (most?), "read the Bible and form your relationship with Jesus Christ" which is code for "make it up for yourself in your head and don't be rude enough to question it out-loud." On this board, with thousands of members, we have thousands of idiosyncratic views of Jesus and Christianity. The religion isn't even strong enough to develop a singular position. That's a red flag for me.

You got it! Says right there in any Bible you pick up. Thing is, you have to actually pick it up to read it, which you clearly have not. I know you can read...just unfortunately, you havent read the most important book in existence.

Yes it is just that simple. You dont follow Jesus, you are going to hell. No other way around it. You can be the nicest boyscout in the land. You dont follow Jesus, you are sunk. If you dont have an intimate relationship with Jesus, you are sunk. Plain, simple, easy.

There really isnt any other avenue or street to argue on. As I said before, Im nothing and nobody. What you are arguing against is much, much higher authority than I will ever be. If that makes me uncool or bad in your eyes...well infinity times rather be bad in your eyes than in Jesus' eyes.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
You got it! Says right there in any Bible you pick up. Thing is, you have to actually pick it up to read it, which you clearly have not. I know you can read...just unfortunately, you havent read the most important book in existence.

The Bible is undoubtedly the most important book in existence, due solely to its influence on more than a billion people and the most powerful nations in the history of civilization, and it's why I do take the time to read it and read the history behind it. Wanting to know about the Bible is independent of the fact that it's not true. The same goes for the Koran.

Yes it is just that simple. You dont follow Jesus, you are going to hell. No other way around it. You can be the nicest boyscout in the land. You dont follow Jesus, you are sunk. If you dont have an intimate relationship with Jesus, you are sunk. Plain, simple, easy.

There really isnt any other avenue or street to argue on. As I said before, Im nothing and nobody. What you are arguing against is much, much higher authority than I will ever be. If that makes me uncool or bad in your eyes...well infinity times rather be bad in your eyes than in Jesus' eyes.

Darn. I guess I'll be hanging out with the billions of Chinese, Indian, Native America, African, etc people who were just unlucky and weren't born in the right place or century to hear the good news...
 

Wingman Ray

Banned
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
110
I don't have anything against strong believers at all. I respect the heck out of guys like Whiskey, who can rationally have a conversation about faith and debate with logic. Rather than "you're going to hell!!1!!" and "BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO" comments.

I wasn't disregarding Ray because of his specific belief, I was disregarding him because his comments lacked any real thought, logic or specific points. Simple as that.

Well Wooly, it is as simple as that. God's Word, the Bible, states it that way. There really isnt a lot to discuss if you actually read the Word. Now you can choose to believe in the Bible, and therefore God, or you can choose not to. I would greatly prefer that you choose the former but if you insist on the latter...well Jesus talks about the wide road quite a bit. That is, if you take the time to read it.

Not much room for discussion. Unfortunately, religion has contaminated so much that it has really added difficulties to Faith. Jesus never said it was supposed to be Catholic or Baptist or Methodist or any other. It was pretty simple until man messed it up.
 

Wingman Ray

Banned
Messages
1,578
Reaction score
110
The Bible is undoubtedly the most important book in existence, due solely to its influence on more than a billion people and the most powerful nations in the history of civilization, and it's why I do take the time to read it and read the history behind it. Wanting to know about the Bible is independent of the fact that it's not true. The same goes for the Koran.



Darn. I guess I'll be hanging out with the billions of Chinese, Indian, Native America, African, etc people who were just unlucky and weren't born in the right place or century to hear the good news...

Unfortunately, you are right. Because once you start injecting emotions and "what is right" into the discussion, you take away Jesus' reason for dying for us all. Yes it sucks that people who dont have much of a chance to know Jesus due to their government await their eternal fate but it is what it is. You either follow Jesus or you are in hell. So reads the Bible, so what it is.

I hope one day you wake up.
 

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,536
Reaction score
3,287
Wingman, please explain the scenario I asked about on the first page:

What happens to the little poor little girl, say in a small remote African village, who passes before anyone can pass the Word of God to her. She just is bound to hell because she never heard the Word?
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
You got it! Says right there in any Bible you pick up. Thing is, you have to actually pick it up to read it, which you clearly have not. I know you can read...just unfortunately, you havent read the most important book in existence.

Yes it is just that simple. You dont follow Jesus, you are going to hell. No other way around it. You can be the nicest boyscout in the land. You dont follow Jesus, you are sunk. If you dont have an intimate relationship with Jesus, you are sunk. Plain, simple, easy.

There really isnt any other avenue or street to argue on. As I said before, Im nothing and nobody. What you are arguing against is much, much higher authority than I will ever be. If that makes me uncool or bad in your eyes...well infinity times rather be bad in your eyes than in Jesus' eyes.

You sound like the christian version of a radical muslim.

Honestly, you don't sound like someone that would ever want to think broadly or consider other types of thought. You made your point and you have every right to your beliefs. But tread lightly, my friend. Because your argument may just sound like small-minded bible thumping right now, but I am sure if you continue to elaborate, there will be something in there for everyone to sour on...
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,821
Reaction score
16,084
TIL when Wingman watches Kingdom of Heaven he cheers for this guy:

6628-26576.gif
 
Last edited:

jerboski

New member
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
63
Unfortunately, you are right. Because once you start injecting emotions and "what is right" into the discussion, you take away Jesus' reason for dying for us all. Yes it sucks that people who dont have much of a chance to know Jesus due to their government await their eternal fate but it is what it is. You either follow Jesus or you are in hell. So reads the Bible, so what it is.

I hope one day you wake up.

It is obvious you are a Christian and I dont have any issues with what you are saying because I believe most of it to be true as well however I think you should focus more on God's grace and forgiveness rather than cramming Hell down everyones throat. Hell is a real place in my mind and according to my faith however the message of the Bible and Jesus has much more to do with grace, forgiveness and developing an understanding/relationship with Christ however Wingman you seemed enormed with reminding everyone about Hell as if that is the entire message. You would probably be taken more sincerely if you used a little tact
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
It is obvious you are a Christian and I dont have any issues with what you are saying because I believe most of it to be true as well however I think you should focus more on God's grace and forgiveness rather than cramming Hell down everyones throat. Hell is a real place in my mind and according to my faith however the message of the Bible and Jesus has much more to do with grace, forgiveness and developing an understanding/relationship with Christ however Wingman you seemed enormed with reminding everyone about Hell as if that is the entire message. You would probably be taken more sincerely if you used a little tact

The issue with his message isn't simply the emphasis. There's an obvious disconnect between Jesus' message of love/ mercy/ justice and a soteriology that consigns an overwhelming majority of humans to eternal damnation.

Christians believe in hell. But we don't know who ends up there, so pretending otherwise puts one in the crowd with the Pharisees shouting "Crucify him!"
 

jerboski

New member
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
63
The issue with his message isn't simply the emphasis. There's an obvious disconnect between Jesus' message of love/ mercy/ justice and a soteriology that consigns an overwhelming majority of humans to eternal damnation.

Christians believe in hell. But we don't know who ends up there, so pretending otherwise puts one in the crowd with the Pharisees shouting "Crucify him!"

I disagree with we dont know who ends up there as I think the Bible is very clear on this. You saying you are a Christian means I can reference the Bible as the all end all in this debate...

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

"Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. "

Lastly, probably the most important verse:

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord"
 

IRISHDODGER

Blue Chip Recruit
Messages
8,042
Reaction score
6,106
But what about the poor little girl who never heard the Word of God before she dies for whatever reason? Burning in Hell because she never heard the message?

I know many Christians say different things for this scenario. I've heard it range from yes, she burns in Hell, to she will be seated with the Lord since she never knew better, and anything in between.

She will not burn in hell. If she has not been exposed to the Gospel (due to isolated geography or age), then she will not be judged by Christ. This is why hundreds of thousands of missionaries travel to all areas of the world...to spread the Gospel. Once the Gospel has reached everyone, Christ will return and the Final Judgement will occur.

I was raised by my parents to believe that "good people go to heaven & bad people go to hell". While that always "seemed" fair, it's nowhere near what I believe now as a Christian. It's easier than that to gain eternity in Heaven. Good works, not cheating on taxes, being faithful to your spouse, etc isn't the point. We are all sinners. This is where organized religion frustrates me & I suspect frustrates God. What unbelievers like to refer to as hypocrites can be easily compared to what the Bible referred to as the Pharisees. They were great at "following rules" and even better at condemning others for breaking those rules. Here's the tough thing for Christians or non-Christians to wrap their heads around: imagine a person commits the most heinous crime imaginable. Then imagine this person has a life changing experience (whether incarcerated or not) and accepts Christ as his Lord and Savior. Only that person and Christ know this person's true intent (we all cynically think of the jailhouse converts), but if it was sincere & the person accepts Christ into his/her heart which incl asking for forgiveness for their sins, they will spend eternity in Heaven. They may get there via lethal injection or whatever punishment is levied on them in our mortal world...but accepting Christ ensures their salvation eternally.

There's an excellent book called "Dinner with a Perfect Stranger" by David Gregory (not the newsguy) that gives a great analogy of how salvation works. As a parent, let's say my child were to make some horrible personal decisions that led to someone losing their life (whether it be under the influence of drugs/alcohol or associating w/ evil people,etc) and was sentenced to death. Again for the sake of the analogy, let's say the presiding judge allowed me to intervene and sacifice my life in place of my child's. In other words, I know my child & that this was not in their heart & they caan overcome this horrific decision and still have a long, fruitful life to live and I can afford my child this opportunity by volunteering to take their place regarding the death sentence. I would do it in a heartbeat. And that's what God did. He saw that the fall of man led to EVERY person to sin. In the Old Testament, they were ordered to sacrifice animals, etc to gain forgiveness & avoid death. God saw that this was not a long-term solution and so sent his only begotten son, Jesus Christ; to voluntarily take our place in death so that we may live the fulfilling life Christ intended. Sorry for the rambling as it may not make sense the way I typed it out but the book is a quick read and gives great insight regarding "WHy Christianity vs other religions?", "What about the Crusades?", etc.

Whatever one thinks about organized religion and the flawed, broken people that Christians are, Christ is all about love and his undying love for us regardless of the bad decisions we make in this fallen world. I am as broken as anyone and do my damnedness not to judge others b/c I am no better than ANY other person in this world.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I disagree with we dont know who ends up there as I think the Bible is very clear on this. You saying you are a Christian means I can reference the Bible as the all end all in this debate...

It doesn't end the debate, because your citations still have to be interpreted. As a Catholic, I have 2,000 years of dogma, doctrine and tradition to inform me. What do you have?

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

That passage doesn't preclude the possibility that people come to the Father through Jesus unknowingly. We, as Christians, have a rough idea of where the Church is, but we don't know where it is not. And who counts as a Christian anyway? Mormons? Jehova's Witnesses? What about Jews? Is their covenant with God still good? Because modern day Jews explicitly reject the divinity of Christ.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. "

One can "obey the Son" (read: lead a selfless, moral life) without being a confessing Christian.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord"

You're reading simple negative inferences into these passages and confidently proclaiming that the vast majority of humanity is going to burn in hell because they aren't confessing Christians. Needless to say, that is not the most coherent interpretation of the text.
 
Last edited:
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Yes it sucks that people who dont have much of a chance to know Jesus due to their government await their eternal fate but it is what it is. You either follow Jesus or you are in hell. So reads the Bible, so what it is.

I love the importance placed on reading the bible by evangelicals/fundamentalists, given the fact that the ability to do so is a rather recent situation. The majority of people in Europe were illiterate, and that's not even the fraction of the those people in Europe who could read the Latin that bibles were written in. And the technological progress to make the bible somewhat available to common people didn't happen until the 1500s.

So the people who get to go to heaven in your outlandish view are only the lucky people born in the right place at the right time and who were told the right thing by the right people. You can't pick up on how silly this sounds?

Also, government? Government? What government put aboriginal people on Australia and isolated them from any possible influence from Christians?
 
Last edited:

Grahambo

Varsity Club Member
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
2,606
It doesn't end the debate, because your citations still have to be interpreted. As a Catholic, I have 2,000 years of dogma, doctrine and tradition to inform me. What do you have?



That passage doesn't preclude the possibility that people come to the Father through Jesus unknowingly. We, as Christians, have a rough idea of where the Church is, but we don't know where it is not. And who counts as a Christian anyway? Mormons? Jehova's Witnesses? What about Jews? Is their covenant with God still good? Because modern day Jews explicitly reject the divinity of Christ.



One can "obey the Son" (read: lead a selfless, moral life) without being a confessing Christian.



You're reading simple negative inferences into these passages and confidently proclaiming that the vast majority of humanity is going to burn in hell because they aren't confessing Christians. Needless to say, that is not the most coherent interpretation of the text.

You and I think alike.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
My post above came off overly harsh to my Protestant friends on this board. I have no desire to relitigate the Reformation here.

My only point was that quoting the Bible as one's authority doesn't really settle anything, because it still requires interpretation. And as Buster points out above, one's personal interpretation of the Bible is extremely contingent-- upon one's literacy (a relatively recent historical development), one's education, one's philosophical assumptions, etc.
 

jerboski

New member
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
63
That passage doesn't preclude the possibility that people come to the Father through Jesus unknowingly. We, as Christians, have a rough idea of where the Church is, but we don't know where it is not. And who counts as a Christian anyway? Mormons? Jehova's Witnesses? What about Jews? Is their covenant with God still good? Because modern day Jews explicitly reject the divinity of Christ.

Who counts as a Christian in my eyes would be someone who has accepted Christ (Jesus) as their Lord and Savior... We can argue this if you want however most would agree this is the "defintion" of a Christian. You bring up other religious groups and question their covenant, according to my view no they wouldnt as my view corresponds with the Bible, clearly.

You're reading simple negative inferences into these passages and confidently proclaiming that the vast majority of humanity is going to burn in hell because they aren't confessing Christians. Needless to say, that is not the most coherent interpretation of the text.[/QUOTE]

I would ask you this, if you are a catholic and call Jesus your Lord and Savior, what exactly did he save you from? Was it not the punishment of sin????????? And what is the punishment of Sin? Pretty clear that we can make some reasonable assertions of what happens.

We can do this all day long however I dont think this is what this thread had in mind so feel free to PM me and we can continue this as it is a good conversation

And sorry for the format, I am typing on my phone so its all messed up!!! My apologies
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
We can do this all day long however I dont think this is what this thread had in mind so feel free to PM me and we can continue this as it is a good conversation

It is a good conversation, and it's remarkable that we're capable of debating such things in a civil way on IE. Our soteriology discussion should probably be moved to the Theology thread. I'll leave the "Atheism" thread for those wishing to discuss the CNN special.
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
First Things' David Gelernter just published an article titled "Why Should a Jew Care Whether Christianity Lives or Dies":

I argued last month that Pope Francis ought to see the reconversion of Europe as his most important task. Surely he agrees that European Christianity is in deep trouble. Surely he does not believe that Christianity no longer matters to Europe, or can no longer be compelling to Europeans. How can he ignore a catastrophe on his doorstep?

Some people asked in response: Why should a Jew care whether Europe is Christian? Rod Dreher in the American Conservative: “I am grateful for Gelernter’s encouragement, but would love to know why it matters so much to a believing Jew that Europe should be re-Christianized.” Good question, but one that is easy for me to answer. The key goes far beyond the opinions of one Jewish writer in Connecticut. It touches the heart of a fundamental change in relations between Judaism and Christianity.

My mother’s father was born near Kiev in 1899 and came to New York as a small child. When he was young, he thought of Christianity as a world of drunken mobs looking for Jews to murder with axes, especially at Easter. Of course, he changed—somewhat—as an adult. Having been reared strictly orthodox, he became a rabbi in the liberal wing of Judaism, and he admired the preaching of the eminent protestant ministers of the middle third of the last century. His synagogue in Brooklyn was across the street from a church, and he was a friend with the minister—who used to have his bells toll the theme of Kol Nidrei as Jews assembled on the evening of Yom Kippur. But despite these admirations and friendships, the church as an institution angered him his whole century-long life. The twentieth was a century that centered, after all, on the murder of Jews. His best friends among non-Jews were not ministers but pre-Cultural Revolution liberals and progressives who hated anti-Semitism—and tended to dislike and distrust Christianity, too.

Most Jews have felt that way about Christianity at least since Constantine invested the Church with the power of Rome; and that was some time ago. But among many of us that attitude has changed, because the Church itself has changed since the Second World War (everything has), and because the Jews’ anti-Christian bias—more than justified by history—has nonetheless caused the world real harm in the decades since the war. Strange but true. I’ll start with the harm.

Nazi Germany will always be one of the central nodes of human history. Naturally, Jews are among the leading historians of the Reich. As for non-Jewish historians, many or most are liberals—and the anti-Christian biases of liberalism grow louder all the time. None of the serious (non-crackpot) historians of Germany and the war let their personal prejudices affect their judgment, if they can help it. But most of us can’t ever help it, not completely. In this case, Nazi Germany is widely and deeply misunderstood by historians who have downplayed crucial facts in a way that suggests anti-Christian bias. And we can’t afford not to work hard to understand Nazi Germany, the Arschloch of human history—as the Nazis themselves would have put it (in their charming way) if only they’d taken a slightly longer view of their own achievements.

The totalitarian tyrannies of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Stalinist Russia had something crucial and telling in common. Amazingly, many of us don’t see it. All three were officially pagan regimes. The cult of the fuehrer (and the separate SS-cult), Shinto emperor-worship and the Stalin personality cult depended on the suppression of more sophisticated religions—in the first and third cases, Christianity.

Historians have too often misread the Nazis, who did not hate Christians but did hate Christianity. They saw it as a form of weakness, as a Jew-concocted poison that had helped ruin Germany. Historians have mostly failed to write about the importance of state paganism under the Nazis—both fuehrer-and-homeland worship (complete with scriptures and liturgy) in the schools and everyday life, and the special ceremonial of the SS, which had its own chapels and marriage ceremonies. Hatred of Christianity fed hatred of the Jews. Nor have we given the credit they deserve to the Christian heroes and martyrs of the anti-Nazi cause, not just Niemoller and Bonhoeffer and a few well-known others but the whole membership of the small yet robust German confessing church, and other nameless Protestants and Catholics who would not be reduced to animals.

Did German Christians rise en masse? No. But death-defying bravery is a trait not many of us have. Historians owe us a deeper, truer account of the nature of Nazism than most have provided. Nazi Jew-hatred swept the best-educated country in Europe because (many say) centuries of Christian anti-Semitism had paved the way. But Nazi denunciation of Christianity as weak Jewish nonsense also paved the way. Germans had been more restive under Christianity than any other major European people. Which paving counted more? Historians should be trying to answer that important question.

We must understand (not ignore!) Nazi hatred of Christianity so we can understand Germany, the moral character of the war in Europe, and the similarities between the three most bestial regimes in human history. Jewish anti-Christian bias is only one small factor in our lack of understanding, but it should be no factor at all. These topics are too important to shortchange.

But the most important reason for Jewish mistrust to change is that Christians have changed.

Not all of them, of course. Many of the mainstream liberal churches are anti-Zionist in a way they are anti-nothing else. When they tell Jews they are merely anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic, we can only ask: what kind of fools do you take us for? Certainly you can oppose the Israeli government and (I suppose) dislike Israel itself, yet not be an anti-Semite. But you cannot oppose Israel with a toxic ferocity reserved for it alone, lie about Israel casually and constantly, yet not be an anti-Semite. Jews are often naïve, but not that naïve.

Of course, we know that mainstream liberal churches are dying. The same holds for the liberal branches of Judaism. In recent decades, too, we have witnessed Liberalism become a religion in its own right. Ultimately, liberal Christianity makes no more sense than Muslim Christianity. Yes, there have been practicing Christians who were also liberals, but increasingly that brief sharing of goals between the two religions looks like a temporary coincidence that was bound to end. As a believing Jew, my grandfather had to break with liberal Judaism towards the end of his life.

Conservatism on the other hand is no religion, and has rarely been mistaken for one.

The attitudes of many conservative Christian churches toward Judaism have changed in important ways, and Jews should acknowledge that change. At one point, those changes were symbolized for Jews by the saintly John XXIII. But that was long ago, and we have lost the thread. It is past time for Jews and Christians to take it up again and follow it to its logical conclusion.

Jews must acknowledge this truth: Christianity is a dialect of Judaism. It is ours—Jews must own it, proudly. Judaism has not always been dead-set against evangelizing, but it was never equipped to be a religion of multitudes. It is for stubborn people who love arguing, especially with God. This is the activity that defines Judaism: the constant challenges starting with Abraham’s in Genesis. “The judge of the whole earth not doing justice?” Judaism is a turbulent faith, a spiritual roller coaster. It is an exacting religion, too, that offers little assurance about the afterlife in return; and it shamelessly celebrates life on earth as God’s greatest gift.

Judaism has a message that every last human being needs to hear—but was unsuited to deliver it. Christianity was the chosen vehicle. The whole world has been touched directly either by Christianity (or, yes, Islam, a more remote Jewish dialect)—or by the idea of the modern liberal state. The modern liberal state was invented in America and inspired by the Hebrew Bible—as interpreted every Sunday by Christian preachers, who were influenced in turn by the English state and British philosophy—both developed by Christians, in what was once a deeply Christian nation. Jews and Englishmen loathe each other, unfortunately, but Jewish ideas plus English ideas are iron and carbon, and yield a fabulously strong carbon steel.

Christianity is a dialect of Judaism, is profoundly Jewish, not just because Jesus answered the famous question about how to merit salvation (“Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”; Luke 10:25) with two Hebrew verses. Jesus responds,

What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.” (Luke 10: 26-27, citing Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18.)

Not just because the man Jesus and his mother, Paul and Peter and so many other Christian founders were Jews. Most important, because the story of the intermediary sent by God to man who was tortured to death by pagans but would not and could not remain dead, who could be killed but never die, is the story of the Jewish people. For Jews, Jesus is klal Yisrael, all Israel in the form of one man—Jesus is the Christian name for “the Jewish people.” And the Passion is Christianity’s recitation and sacralizing of Jewish history. (The Jews, of course, are repeatedly called the Lord’s first-born son in the Hebrew Bible.)

What is accomplished this way is a masterpiece of subtlety and paradox. Christians associate themselves with Jesus and his Roman murderers simultaneously. In the dark, bloody side of this extraordinary retelling, compression, intensification of history, Christians worshipped the murdered man while repeating the murder again and again, and sometimes worshipped the grieving mother while re-creating her grief. But they have passed through that age of blood; thank God it is over. They have come of age—as the Jews had to do so long ago when they were forced to leave home and confront God’s having moved out of prophecy, out of history, to the innermost depths of the soul. At last Christians can look clearly at what their faith means.

It is not time to forget (ever) or forgive (which we have no right to do), but it is time to move ahead. Jews and Christians can both look at the essence of Christianity, at the life and passion of Jesus, and accept it as true—which is a sort of miracle. To do so they must understand it in radically different ways, one seeing God’s son and the other their own selves, “God’s son”; but what’s amazing is not that they disagree along the way, but that in the end they do not. This is the true and sacred story of God and man. How long it will be before Christians and Jews generally accept this reading that joins them at the hip—like the soldiers’ church and the Dome des Invalides in Paris, two separate, unlike churches—one just a nave, one only a choir—that come together end-to-end to share one altar—is impossible to say. But it will happen some day.

It comes down to this: Christianity is the Jews’ gift to mankind; the most important gift mankind has ever received. That so many modern leftists would say to themselves, “All the more reason to hate the Jews,” merely underlines the point. The natural enemy of the Jew is the natural enemy of the Christian, too—the conscience-hater, the man who wants no witnesses.

Why should a Jew care whether Christianity lives or dies? Because he must care whether the message of Judaism lives or dies, whether the mission of Judaism fails or succeeds.

In the end, that hardly matters. The important question is not why a Jew, but why a human being should care about the fate of Christianity.

And the answer is exactly the same.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
Wooly, I'll try to post more after work today. I've got bow out for the next couple hours and this is really too big of a topic to write short on.

Alright... so you had asked:
I guess that is what I am asking. In a vacuum, what specifically is wrong with the core concept of atheism (the belief that no deities exist)?

In terms of right/wrong, I should clarify that I'm not talking wrong in terms of correct/incorrect. I'm not advocating any belief set as the "correct" one.

Before I get into this, I should preface everything here by saying that there are some people that try to draw a distinction between "hard" atheism and "soft" atheism. In short, the difference between the two is that "hard" atheism is an actual belief set by people who attempt to put money where their mouth is, and "soft" atheism is closer to a meekly held opinion of how things probably are. There isn't much at all wrong with "soft" atheism, and it's closer to/more compatible with agnosticism. What I'm talking about is "hard" atheism which is the kind of thing you can actually build a "congregation" around because it's a true belief set that states affirmatively that there is not a god. And that's what I'm talking about from here on in whenever I say "atheism."

What I'm saying is wrong about "core concepts" of atheism is the justifications, rationales, and faulty logic used by atheists to perpetuate the myth that atheism is grounded in science/facts while other religions are "mythology."

I'll hit on three of the common things you hear from atheists in justifying their atheism:
1. "Accepted science conflicts or disproves aspects of other belief sets but does not disprove atheism..." -- First, what is "accepted science" changes all the time. What people take as "fact" is often disproved at a later date. Any physicist worth his salt would tell you the amount we understand about the universe pales in comparison to the almost infinite amount that we do not understand about the universe. And on top of that, things we do understand -- like the rate at which mass generates the force we call "gravity" -- we almost always have next-level issues with. Why does gravity function how it does? When you break it down and continue asking "why" with any scientific question eventually you reach a point where science doesn't have an answer or the explanation is "it just does." So this flaw in reasoning is pretty obvious.

Second, there is the fact that atheism is an affirmative belief set that there are not and cannot possibly be deities anywhere in the universe. There is no science that supports this affirmative position. The absence of observation does not indicate the absence of existence... this is something science has proven.

2. "There is a scientific or physical explanation for everything and the universe does not require any force beyond our comprehension to exist or function..." -- Patently false. And this statement is a pillar of why most atheists choose to be atheists... the idea is that if there doesn't need to be something beyond our comprehension for the universe to function, then there probably isn't something beyond our comprehension causing the universe the function. The reality is that "deities" as an answer for why/how things function cannot be considered less-plausible than "just because science" at this juncture because "science" doesn't even come close to answer all the questions right now.

3. "Deities interfered wildly in major religions and now that we have video cameras they don't do anything anymore so clearly that was all BS and that's why atheism is the right choice..." -- This type of statement is common. You can twist the words into many other justifications that are similar... other religions are wrong, therefor atheism is correct. In short, the rejection of major religions does nothing to make atheism correct. It's a logical fallacy. One cannot support atheism strictly on the grounds of "other guys are wrong." Which all hearkens back to the over-arching problem with the core concept of atheism... not only is there no proof that beings beyond our comprehension do not exist, but given our current capabilities as humans its virtually impossible to prove or even support this negative statement. Of all the belief sets, "strong" atheism actually has the least of all to back it up. Everything else at least attempts to have 1) legacy information/scripture/at least anecdotal "evidence" of a diety or supernatural force and 2) some sort of theological or logical rationale for believing in the religion. Atheism has literally nothing to justify why someone should believe it, because "doubt in other religions" would lead an informed person to agnosticism instead of atheism.
 
Top