The majority of earth's population is not Christian and is going to hell according to Christian logic.
I mean I hate to be so elementary but has it not always been a bit suspicious that there is this religion thing that says you will get all these great things, but if you aint on board or don't do what we say there is the other place that's really really terrible! Seems kind of...made up, no? This is of course without getting into the hypocrisy of it which the OP was probably asking about.
I mean if you want to start a cult what do you do? There is some sort of reward for falling in line, and complete horror if you don't ? I don't get it. And I went to Jesuit schools. Who falls for this. Its a bit of a trope, but religion really is the most destructive force in the world historically. Nationalism and race etc... are pretty distant second.
Big: Theres no way through, around, or under. Its a closed field, razor wire, electric, and moat with aligators. Questioning, personal thought, perception are anathema to the cult mentality. Only time and cosmic osmosis can possibly get through. History will probably and grudgingly shed some light on the dynamic that is blocking Mans view of things. But religion is too deeply ingrained, falsley promises too much to the hopeful...to be breached at this time. And a tunnel with very little light showing is coming up! Peace and love are not in imminent view.
As a Catholic I was brought up to believe that people of other religions that have lived a righteous life can be granted salvation from God which would be true of any Christian as well.
I think the most important lesson I have ever learned is that we are not to take the place of God and judge others. Catholic Church has had major issues following this basic doctrine even though it is shown throughout the New Testament. I feel in many ways that I have drifted from my church for this reason but hopefully not from God.
Most atheists are okay. But there are millions of rapes and robberies and murders committed every year in the world. Christians can not commit those crimes.
Riiiiight. Except that god-believers are overrepresented and atheists underrepresented in prison.
Oh, dear. The Gospel that is called Luke received its name in the latter part of the second century CE. Serious scholars (those who haven't formed their "conclusion" in advance) don't accept authorship of Luke (and Acts) by a companion of Paul. For useful discussion, see .
Jesus was a great moral philosopher who attracted a following because he stood up against the social order imposed by the Romans. The Sermon on the Mount is really a call for civil disobedience against the Romans. The theology of Jesus's teachings was basically borrowed from Judaism's belief in the Kingdom of God. Jesus's moral teachings were part of his call to repent before the coming of the Kingdom of God. If God is going to directly rule over human kind, it is a good idea to start doing good deeds and stop all the raping and killing.
After Jesus was crucified by the Romans, his followers wanted to keep his movement alive. They created the myth of Jesus's resurrection, virgin birth, etc. to basically shoe horn Jesus into Judaism's belief in a messiah while maintaining monotheism in contrast to the Roman's polytheism. As the early Christians were basically just an offshoot of Judaism, they needed to find a way to attract more followers. In Judaism, the concept of Heaven was a complicated belief in seven different levels where God and all the angels hung out. Then there is Paradise, which sort of a Jewish version of an afterlife, but complicated.
Christians saw an opening in the afterlife to attract Jews and Romans away from their theology (or lack thereof). Jews were very good at creating a bit of a members only club by requiring circumcision for men. That could really only be done at birth. Trying to do circumcision in adulthood during the mid Classical Era was horrifically painful and could lead to infection and death. So there was an opening to recruit followers.
Instead of a vague afterlife through the myth of Paradise, Christians decided that they would create their own members only club by requiring followers to accept Christ as their savior. In doing so, Christians were promised eternal life after death. And they threw in Heaven as a kicker. Then, to make sure any doubters or stragglers could be pulled in, they added the idea of Hell for those who did not accept Jesus. And to top it off, good Christians were obligated to spread the Gospel and convert as many souls to Christianity as they could in order to bring about the second coming of Christ.
To say that the belief system is all just clever marketing to try to make the Christian church dominate in society is not too far off. Between Islam, paganism of a number of different variations, Roman polytheism, Judaism and many offshoots and variations of the foregoing, there was a lot of competition to get people in to your Church, Synagogue, Mosque, Temple or whatever. The power of leading a religious group was second only to the emerging states and the receding power of the Roman empire. So, you could do really well for yourself if you got a lot of people to join your church and follow Christianity.
The concept of salvation is far more complex than a non-believer can accept. They lack the ability to discern things to know what was written, and what is said to them about what was written.
However, I will try to put it in the simplest terms that I can for everyone.
First, man was created in the image of God, in order to be a reflection of God in this world. Man sinned, and thus was fallen. The Old Testament was written to explain just how difficult it was for any man to live up to the standard of perfection, making man realize that he could not save himself. Once the standard was set, God sent His Son to show the grace of God in His offering up of Himself to pay the price for sin. Once man admits that he is incapable of living up to the standard, he can then come to Christ in humble repentance. Those who do so will receive eternal life with God, and those who reject the free gift will become eternally separated from Him. What this separation is actually like is beyond our ability to explain, but I can safely say that it will be without all of the blessings that being with God can offer a soul.
This is a very brief explanation of how I believe it from scripture, but I think it explains it well enough for everyone to understand my thoughts. Yes, there are a lot of specifics not included, but there is enough for the points needed to be made.
Jesus was a great moral philosopher who attracted a following because he stood up against the social order imposed by the Romans. The Sermon on the Mount is really a call for civil disobedience against the Romans. The theology of Jesus's teachings was basically borrowed from Judaism's belief in the Kingdom of God. Jesus's moral teachings were part of his call to repent before the coming of the Kingdom of God. If God is going to directly rule over human kind, it is a good idea to start doing good deeds and stop all the raping and killing.
After Jesus was crucified by the Romans, his followers wanted to keep his movement alive. They created the myth of Jesus's resurrection, virgin birth, etc. to basically shoe horn Jesus into Judaism's belief in a messiah while maintaining monotheism in contrast to the Roman's polytheism. As the early Christians were basically just an offshoot of Judaism, they needed to find a way to attract more followers. In Judaism, the concept of Heaven was a complicated belief in seven different levels where God and all the angels hung out. Then there is Paradise, which sort of a Jewish version of an afterlife, but complicated.
Christians saw an opening in the afterlife to attract Jews and Romans away from their theology (or lack thereof). Jews were very good at creating a bit of a members only club by requiring circumcision for men. That could really only be done at birth. Trying to do circumcision in adulthood during the mid Classical Era was horrifically painful and could lead to infection and death. So there was an opening to recruit followers.
Instead of a vague afterlife through the myth of Paradise, Christians decided that they would create their own members only club by requiring followers to accept Christ as their savior. In doing so, Christians were promised eternal life after death. And they threw in Heaven as a kicker. Then, to make sure any doubters or stragglers could be pulled in, they added the idea of Hell for those who did not accept Jesus. And to top it off, good Christians were obligated to spread the Gospel and convert as many souls to Christianity as they could in order to bring about the second coming of Christ.
To say that the belief system is all just clever marketing to try to make the Christian church dominate in society is not too far off. Between Islam, paganism of a number of different variations, Roman polytheism, Judaism and many offshoots and variations of the foregoing, there was a lot of competition to get people in to your Church, Synagogue, Mosque, Temple or whatever. The power of leading a religious group was second only to the emerging states and the receding power of the Roman empire. So, you could do really well for yourself if you got a lot of people to join your church and follow Christianity.
There is so much wrong with this explanation that I don't even want to give it any of my time, but I did. That is all the time it is worth.
Most atheists are okay. But there are millions of rapes and robberies and murders committed every year in the world. Christians can not commit those crimes.
Riiiiight. Except that god-believers are overrepresented and atheists underrepresented in prison.
They say "There are no Atheists in foxholes" but they say lots of nonsense. Probably the guy saying "Christians can not commit those crimes" meant "may not" in the sense that their precepts dont allow it. Or he meant that "good" Christians (to be announced on their discovery) can not etc..... But Atheists question those old saws and apply their own God-given (uh-oh! you cant say that! Can too! Think!) brain and perception to figure stuff out. I have no allegiance to either side of the question (although I love a lot of religious art and music that slipped under the tent!) I wiggle between Alan Watts, mainly for his humor, and Krishnamurti for his lofty optimism. But there are, Virginia, real and decent and self-realized Atheists who wish you well. Dont threaten you with Hell Fire or Damnation, or demand your allegiance to a set of weird promises of rewards for loyalty.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Sp
Jesus was a great moral philosopher who attracted a following because he stood up against the social order imposed by the Romans. The Sermon on the Mount is really a call for civil disobedience against the Romans. The theology of Jesus's teachings was basically borrowed from Judaism's belief in the Kingdom of God. Jesus's moral teachings were part of his call to repent before the coming of the Kingdom of God. If God is going to directly rule over human kind, it is a good idea to start doing good deeds and stop all the raping and killing.
After Jesus was crucified by the Romans, his followers wanted to keep his movement alive. They created the myth of Jesus's resurrection, virgin birth, etc. to basically shoe horn Jesus into Judaism's belief in a messiah while maintaining monotheism in contrast to the Roman's polytheism. As the early Christians were basically just an offshoot of Judaism, they needed to find a way to attract more followers. In Judaism, the concept of Heaven was a complicated belief in seven different levels where God and all the angels hung out. Then there is Paradise, which sort of a Jewish version of an afterlife, but complicated.
Christians saw an opening in the afterlife to attract Jews and Romans away from their theology (or lack thereof). Jews were very good at creating a bit of a members only club by requiring circumcision for men. That could really only be done at birth. Trying to do circumcision in adulthood during the mid Classical Era was horrifically painful and could lead to infection and death. So there was an opening to recruit followers.
Instead of a vague afterlife through the myth of Paradise, Christians decided that they would create their own members only club by requiring followers to accept Christ as their savior. In doing so, Christians were promised eternal life after death. And they threw in Heaven as a kicker. Then, to make sure any doubters or stragglers could be pulled in, they added the idea of Hell for those who did not accept Jesus. And to top it off, good Christians were obligated to spread the Gospel and convert as many souls to Christianity as they could in order to bring about the second coming of Christ.
To say that the belief system is all just clever marketing to try to make the Christian church dominate in society is not too far off. Between Islam, paganism of a number of different variations, Roman polytheism, Judaism and many offshoots and variations of the foregoing, there was a lot of competition to get people in to your Church, Synagogue, Mosque, Temple or whatever. The power of leading a religious group was second only to the emerging states and the receding power of the Roman empire. So, you could do really well for yourself if you got a lot of people to join your church and follow Christianity.
The actual reality of what happened to Christ's early followers completely and utterly destroys this bizarre theory you've copied and pasted.
Jesus was a great moral philosopher who attracted a following because he stood up against the social order imposed by the Romans. The Sermon on the Mount is really a call for civil disobedience against the Romans. The theology of Jesus's teachings was basically borrowed from Judaism's belief in the Kingdom of God. Jesus's moral teachings were part of his call to repent before the coming of the Kingdom of God. If God is going to directly rule over human kind, it is a good idea to start doing good deeds and stop all the raping and killing.
After Jesus was crucified by the Romans, his followers wanted to keep his movement alive. They created the myth of Jesus's resurrection, virgin birth, etc. to basically shoe horn Jesus into Judaism's belief in a messiah while maintaining monotheism in contrast to the Roman's polytheism. As the early Christians were basically just an offshoot of Judaism, they needed to find a way to attract more followers. In Judaism, the concept of Heaven was a complicated belief in seven different levels where God and all the angels hung out. Then there is Paradise, which sort of a Jewish version of an afterlife, but complicated.
Christians saw an opening in the afterlife to attract Jews and Romans away from their theology (or lack thereof). Jews were very good at creating a bit of a members only club by requiring circumcision for men. That could really only be done at birth. Trying to do circumcision in adulthood during the mid Classical Era was horrifically painful and could lead to infection and death. So there was an opening to recruit followers.
Instead of a vague afterlife through the myth of Paradise, Christians decided that they would create their own members only club by requiring followers to accept Christ as their savior. In doing so, Christians were promised eternal life after death. And they threw in Heaven as a kicker. Then, to make sure any doubters or stragglers could be pulled in, they added the idea of Hell for those who did not accept Jesus. And to top it off, good Christians were obligated to spread the Gospel and convert as many souls to Christianity as they could in order to bring about the second coming of Christ.
To say that the belief system is all just clever marketing to try to make the Christian church dominate in society is not too far off. Between Islam, paganism of a number of different variations, Roman polytheism, Judaism and many offshoots and variations of the foregoing, there was a lot of competition to get people in to your Church, Synagogue, Mosque, Temple or whatever. The power of leading a religious group was second only to the emerging states and the receding power of the Roman empire. So, you could do really well for yourself if you got a lot of people to join your church and follow Christianity.
This is only partially true. For one thing, Christianity doesn't have the second coming as a goal, they teach its something that will happen that mankind has no control over. There are old testament references to hell and heaven, which means the Jews already had these. Christians built on concepts that already existed and concentrated more theological thought on them. The big novelty of Christianity was a new covenant with the Jewish god, a change in the relationship with man and god, and an opportunity to interact with god in a more personal, direct way. It developed clearer paths to good and bad consequences after death. This latter part is what drew followers away from other beliefs.
The early church was relatively egalitarian but over time clergy warped a lot of these views for personal or institutional gain, but enough early writings around the selected works of the Bible exist that they couldn't fully redefine the Christian faith. However, there was enough ambiguity left from the Christian text itself and thought on it to allow for significant sectarian schism.
Prior monotheistic faiths didn't a need to proselytize the way Christianity and latter monotheistic faiths do because travel was significantly more limited prior to the Roman Empire. There was no culture of long voyages - they were risky and rarely taken save for economic and diplomatic reasons.
Christianity is one of the first times we see an ethos of spreading religion by persuasion. Before that, religion spread beyond local communities via the concept of make them into us - demographic change and combining extant ideas together. Before Christianity, there wasn't such a notion of canon and origin myths were often a bit mutable.
Whatever you think "atheism" is, it's not supposed to have a moral foundation. Atheism/agnostic/science is simply skepticism whether all the supernatural miracles you have profound belief in actually happened. It's seems highly unlikely, if not impossible. You do understand that some logical people think your beliefs are impossible, right? And you have little evidence they are true?
We have all the moral foundation we need, same as you. Just minus the supernatural stuff. It's pretty easy for me to treat people fairly and believe, e.g. that theft is wrong, without having to also believe that your personal savior was dead, and then through some unknown biological process, came to life again. It's really easy. I do it better than you.
What does it mean to "treat people fairly"? That seems nebulous to me and could vary greatly from person to person.
I suppose those three words are nebulous in context, and yes that could and does vary from person to person. Nonetheless, I treat people fairly, and I don't feel commanded or even advised to do so by the Bible or any other holy authority. You, on the other hand, either (1) don't treat people fairly because you don't know what it means to do so, or (2) have to consult a holy book to figure out what's fair every time you have a relatively complex encounter with another person.
And WHY is theft wrong? What if someone is starving and has to steal to survive? What if a person steals from a wealthy entity to give that money to the poor? Without a foundational of morality, subjectivity of perspective allows a lot of leeway for deviation.
You tell me. What does the "foundational of morality" that you referenced (I assume you mean the Bible) say about whether theft is wrong and the two other hypothetical situations you typed?
I think theft is wrong. I'm not going to go thieving stuff from people today. The reason I'm not going to do that is because I consider it unfair to others. I don't know how much thieving you do or don't do, but I hope it is little or none because you also consider it unfair to others.
The concept of salvation is far more complex than a non-believer can accept. They lack the ability to discern things to know what was written, and what is said to them about what was written.
However, I will try to put it in the simplest terms that I can for everyone.
First, man was created in the image of God, in order to be a reflection of God in this world. Man sinned, and thus was fallen. The Old Testament was written to explain just how difficult it was for any man to live up to the standard of perfection, making man realize that he could not save himself. Once the standard was set, God sent His Son to show the grace of God in His offering up of Himself to pay the price for sin. Once man admits that he is incapable of living up to the standard, he can then come to Christ in humble repentance. Those who do so will receive eternal life with God, and those who reject the free gift will become eternally separated from Him. What this separation is actually like is beyond our ability to explain, but I can safely say that it will be without all of the blessings that being with God can offer a soul.
This is a very brief explanation of how I believe it from scripture, but I think it explains it well enough for everyone to understand my thoughts. Yes, there are a lot of specifics not included, but there is enough for the points needed to be made.
Non-believers can feel free to flame this post.
I'd like to start with your first sentence. Its a tenet of Christianity that anyone could be accepted into the religion, or accept salvation, whatever. This is why they proselytize. Its why many, especially in the west, are so familiar with their beliefs and know little about Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, etc.
If you accept Christ and you love Him, you get to spend eternity with Him in heaven. If you don't accept/love Him, you don't have to spend eternity with Him. That sounds fair to me.
I simply disagree. I don’t see anything in human history suggesting that cooperation outside of our immediate blood kin is instinctive. No one needs to be taught to fight, to steal what doesn’t belong to them, to go to war with the next tribe over. That is normal human behavior.
And again, evolution purports to explain how the “cooperative instinct” evolved. But it can’t tell me why I should behave in a kind, loving, and merciful way. Sure, you could make the case that it’s to my advantage, but again that doesn’t tell me why. I can think of plenty of scenarios in which non-cooperation is advantageous.
Trying to build an ethic around social utility alone is difficult at best. I think it fails to the end. You need something eternal to hang your epistemological hat on, so to speak
Chimps live in groups of 15 to 150 individuals and that and their patch of forest is their world and violence within the groups themselves is rare. The difference for us is that we can recognize that the whole world is much larger than our small patch and that those people thousands of miles away are also humans just like us and deserve just as much freedom and safety as we feel that we merit.
Give me a long term scenario in which non-cooperation is to the net benefit. Sure, some people perpetuate their whole lives as thieves and frauds but it’s not without risk and it’s not a tenable path for most.
I think that time itself may be the only eternal component that exists and yet I want to be a good and moral member of this planet, as do most non-believers.
I don’t consider cooperation instead of conflict to be normal. Human history would seem to say otherwise. Nor can you explain the genetic/biological mechanisms by which human beings “evolved” to cooperate.
You can’t explain to me why you want to be good. I understand your view of human evolution and the self-evident benefits of cooperation (in some cases). But you must admit that not everyone feels that way. You can’t tell someone to behave “because our primal ancestors did it” or “it’s what is best for you.”
I’m sure you could think of plenty of historical examples in which noncooperation was by far the best alternative. Slavery practiced throughout the world. By far the most self preserving alternatives for a slave would be non-cooperation in his or her enslavement. The best alternative for Poland, after being invaded by Nazi Germany, and the Soviet union, was non-cooperation. And many poles practiced exactly that.
The best the atheist can do his appeal to self interest. And self interest alone cannot build and maintain a society.
The Christian, Jew, and Muslim, can proclaim and ethical worldview rooted in the eternal. You may not like it, or agree with it, but nevertheless, it’s a worldview that is internally logical.
Chimps live in groups of 15 to 150 individuals and that and their patch of forest is their world and violence within the groups themselves is rare. The difference for us is that we can recognize that the whole world is much larger than our small patch and that those people thousands of miles away are also humans just like us and deserve just as much freedom and safety as we feel that we merit.
Give me a long term scenario in which non-cooperation is to the net benefit. Sure, some people perpetuate their whole lives as thieves and frauds but it’s not without risk and it’s not a tenable path for most.
I think that time itself may be the only eternal component that exists and yet I want to be a good and moral member of this planet, as do most non-believers.
I don’t consider cooperation instead of conflict to be normal. Human history would seem to say otherwise. Nor can you explain the genetic/biological mechanisms by which human beings “evolved” to cooperate.
You can’t explain to me why you want to be good. I understand your view of human evolution and the self-evident benefits of cooperation (in some cases). But you must admit that not everyone feels that way. You can’t tell someone to behave “because our primal ancestors did it” or “it’s what is best for you.”
I’m sure you could think of plenty of historical examples in which noncooperation was by far the best alternative. Slavery practiced throughout the world. By far the most self preserving alternatives for a slave would be non-cooperation in his or her enslavement. The best alternative for Poland, after being invaded by Nazi Germany, and the Soviet union, was non-cooperation. And many poles practiced exactly that.
The best the atheist can do his appeal to self interest. And self interest alone cannot build and maintain a society.
The Christian, Jew, and Muslim, can proclaim and ethical worldview rooted in the eternal. You may not like it, or agree with it, but nevertheless, it’s a worldview that is internally logical.
These people have never even seen a world which isn't structured on the Judaeo-Christian framework they are surrounded by yet deny.
They think movies about kind and loving primitive tribes were are reality.
Religion isn't corrupt and violent. Humans are corrupt and violent and they make everything they are involved in corrupt and violent.
As a Catholic I was brought up to believe that people of other religions that have lived a righteous life can be granted salvation from God which would be true of any Christian as well.
Really? That's a pretty rare view amongst Christians, including Catholics. In fact, the only Christian that I can ever recall saying similar to that was Pope Francis and he was heavily criticized for it.
All Christians that I have ever heard on this issue (and I went to a great Catholic school for 4 years) take a more literal reading of John 3:16 and consider it binary -- there's no way any non-Christians gets salvation, according to every Christian I've ever known (and, like most Americans, I'm surrounded by Christians and Christianity).
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.