God has provided a natural understanding of His existence, visible through His creation. So Friend Z is responsible (once he comes to an age of moral understanding and assuming he has the wisdom to discern right & wrong, along with its possible consequences - so we're talking about someone with functional intelligence and the inspecific age of "maturity") to at least acknowledge that some Supreme Being exists. He can, at this point, choose to squash those innate philosophies but let's just assume for sake of argument that he does not (reject the existence of a Supreme Being).
I have to totally disagree on your assessment of this point. It seems clear to me that everyone comes to their own understanding of nature, and for > 99% of people, it ends up defaulting to whatever they're taught. If you grow up in a community of mostly Christians, raised by Christians, then nature is "obviously" proof of a single God. If you grow up in an animistic culture, then there are "obviously" nature spirits that make nature so majestic. Etc. I believe that most of what people claim is obvious truth, or common sense, is just remnants of their upbringing. (As another example, if a person were raised by the KKK, in a like-minded community, then bigotry would "obviously" be proper to them, and they would consider it willful ignorance or even evil to deny that "obvious" truth).
Oh and another question. With the creation story. I understand the whole "Gods seven days could easily have meant millions of years" deal thats all good. But why do the scriptures fail to mention the fact that God created the earth as a teeny tiny speck in a huge universe filled with countless other planets and stars? Seems like something God would have mentioned since earth was such an infentesimal fragment of what he ceated.
I think this might have something to do with humans being imortant. According to the Bible, we are "created in God's image", so that makes us His most important creation. So if the Bible talked about all the other planets and stars and galaxies, it would seem as if we were not as important. That was the same thing with the sun-around-the-earth bit too.
Also, the Bible wasn't supposed to be a comprehensive guide to creation. If the rest of the universe has nothing to do with us here on Earth, then why should God discuss it in the Bible? It would just be extraneous.
Man I get busy with work for a few days and suddenly everyone is charting my path through the great beyond...
Lady A, don't worry about the snarky post. S'all good. But I would like to address a few of your apparent concerns about me.
... So I don't poke. I grab the biggest damn stick I can find and swing for the fences. By this time I'm immune to being stung, but I get to watch the bees and see what they do. It is easy to get the truth out of...
Thank you for explaining! Your post actually made me laugh (and considering I actually logged off last night crying, I could use a good laugh!). I appreciate your interest in understanding your fellow man and I'm sorry for assuming just the opposite was true.
Oh and another question. With the creation story. I understand the whole "Gods seven days could easily have meant millions of years" deal thats all good. But why do the scriptures fail to mention the fact that God created the earth as a teeny tiny speck in a huge universe filled with countless other planets and stars? Seems like something God would have mentioned since earth was such an infentesimal fragment of what he ceated.I think this might have something to do with humans being imortant. According to the Bible, we are "created in God's image", so that makes us His most important creation. So if the Bible talked about all the other planets and stars and galaxies, it would seem as if we were not as important. That was the same thing with the sun-around-the-earth bit too.
Also, the Bible wasn't supposed to be a comprehensive guide to creation. If the rest of the universe has nothing to do with us here on Earth, then why should God discuss it in the Bible? It would just be extraneous.
Good question, Sexi. I'd never given it a whole lotta thought. I think Dirk answered this one very well. I'd just like to add two other possible motivations for excluding any talk of the vastness of the universe. #1 it could distract the reader from his/her own part in God's plan/the need for salvation. I mean, if you consider that God possibly has innumerable other worlds then I guess it wouldn't be a big deal if I flip Him off or even if the entire Earth itself is a lost cause. #2 our favorite subject is always ourselves. Example: Brits have complained loudly in the past when American films presented historically inaccurate movies where Americans are the key characters rather than the British or some other nationality. The producers invariably use the excuse that it's nigh onto impossible to market a film to Americans that doesn't include themselves in the spotlight (which is why it was so shocking to many that Schindler's List was such a blockbuster hit - no Americans appear in the film).
Anyway, just a few stray thoughts there.
|
Oh and another question. With the creation story. I understand the whole "Gods seven days could easily have meant millions of years" deal thats all good. But why do the scriptures fail to mention the fact that God created the earth as a teeny tiny speck in a huge universe filled with countless other planets and stars? Seems like something God would have mentioned since earth was such an infentesimal fragment of what he ceated.
Genesis 1:16
God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.I'm not sure what else you are looking for. I'm just not sure why it would have been important for God to say "Ok, you live on a big round ball. This ball is hurtling through space and rotates around an axis and also orbits that great big light up there. The other light actually rotates around the giant ball that you are on. Now pay attention, this is where it gets confusing. There are 12 (or is it 11?) other giant balls that also orbit around that great big light but at varying distances from it..."
Or it could have been --
"He also made the stars and the planets."
"The what?"
"The planets."
"What is a planet."
"It's like what you are standing on."
"A big giant flat expanse?"
"Actually what you are standing on is like a giant ball."
"I don't get it..."
I guess that it is mildly entertaining, but not sure what the point is or should have been. The only part of the universe that people understood for the longest time was what they could see. All they could see was the stars. God said that he made the stars.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm getting off the Jesus-Go-Round. As usual, it's mostly just made me sick and irritated. Here's a quick response to the last few things raised:
Lady Aurora: If Friend Z gets judged on his behavior without having knowledge of Christ, doesn't that imply that we would all be better out without having knowledge of Christ? Why is it that when we are exposed to him, we are held to a higher standard. It strikes me that if you really cared about the salvation of others, you would try not to expose them to the concept of Christ while still exposing the core of his teachings, which would enable a person to get to Heaven without having to say the magic password of "I believe in Christ."
Moff: Various sects of Christianity proclaim various paths to salvation. Some say that baptism is necessary, others say that complete absolution is available upon request. I am doubtful that other religions say that they are merely a path to salvation rather than the path to salvation. The point is that there are a lot of choices out there and I don't see how a person can know that they made the right one.
David Emmons: That's weird, God talked to me too and he told me that the truth lies within and not in the Bible. He said he didn't write the Bible, that it was man who wrote it. I guess you must be talking to the wrong guy. I've got a buddy who talks to Allah, and he says that Allah told him that the truth was in the Koran. Weird? You would think that if we all had a line to the same divine being he'd tell us all the same thing, wouldn't you? I'd try again, I think you've got the wrong diety, sounds like a drunken Thor has been crank calling you.
I'm getting off the Jesus-Go-Round. As usual, it's mostly just made me sick and irritated.
Really? Oh, come on champ hang in there, you have some of the best friggin posts on this subject man.
Well if Sebastion really is bowing out then I'm going to up my ante a little I guess.
Here's one I've been sitting on for a while. It's not even a question it is some inside info.
Why do atheists get offended when people tell them they believe they are going to hell? Especially since they do not believe in hell?
Answer: Because it is an insult. Do not misunderstand me it is not like an insult. It is not something that can be misconstrued as an insult. That is simply what it is.
An insult is a statement or action which affronts or demeans someone.
An insult may be intentional or accidental. An example of the latter is a well-intended simple explanation, which in fact is superfluous, but is given due to underestimating intelligence or knowledge of the other.
When something like this is uttered it is offensive because you are telling the person in question that they deserve hell. Which, the last time hell was described to me I'd take that as a pretty sick thing to say.
There is no reason whatsoever for a person not to be upset over that. If I call someone a d$*$!ead and they get pissed off I can't say "Well the only way you could be angry with me is if you believed in the possibility that you may be a d$&!!ead. So unless your willing to admit that you might actually be a d+@!#ead then you have no right to be offended. If I'm wrong and you really aren't a d$$~!ead then me calling you shouldn't bother you"
Any thoughts?
Just that it brings to mind the idea of ethnic clensing. Two tribes of guys from Africa, one from the "Christian" tribe and one from the "Atheist" tribe. The guy from the Christian tribe comes right out and says the Atheist deserves to die according to his ideology and it's a darn shame, but when the guys with machetes come to chop him up the Christian isn't going to do a thing but shake his head solemnly and shrug. It's the system, and there's no use opposing or trying to change the system, because then the guys with machetes would just come after me too...
|
|
Why do atheists get offended when people tell them they believe they are going to hell? Especially since they do not believe in hell?
Answer: Because it is an insult. Do not misunderstand me it is not like an insult. It is not something that can be misconstrued as an insult. That is simply what it is.
An insult is a statement or action which affronts or demeans someone.
At least here, I think that it has only been brought up in response to something. It seems like someone going up to someone else and asking how their hair looks. The response is "It looks like crap" -- and then they get offended.
I don't think that any Christians here meant to condemn people or really even did. The truth is that no one really knows what will happen. No one has seen it happen. No one has been there and come back.
If I ask some other religious group what they believe will happen to me when I die and their response is "Based on the length of your nostril hair, you will get to lick the eternal lolipop of dung for a thousand years." I'm not sure why I should be offended.
Why do atheists get offended when people tell them they believe they are going to hell? Especially since they do not believe in hell?
Answer: Because it is an insult. Do not misunderstand me it is not like an insult. It is not something that can be misconstrued as an insult. That is simply what it is.
An insult is a statement or action which affronts or demeans someone.
At least here, I think that it has only been brought up in response to something. It seems like someone going up to someone else and asking how their hair looks. The response is "It looks like crap" -- and then they get offended.
I don't think that any Christians here meant to condemn people or really even did. The truth is that no one really knows what will happen. No one has seen it happen. No one has been there and come back.
If I ask some other religious group what they believe will happen to me when I die and their response is "Based on the length of your nostril hair, you will get to lick the eternal lolipop of dung for a thousand years." I'm not sure why I should be offended.
It's the unyielding sanctimony of the type of believer who would say something so incomprehensibly stupid. Some believe things that cannot be proven... at all... and yet they delight in ramming "I'm right! You're wrong!" down your throat. It's like dealing with a pesky child missing part of his brain who insists on telling you that you were born to make sandwiches and nothing else. Why should we be bothered? Because we're being doinked in the ribs and deliberately called out, and that's bothersome. Of course I am not saying that a religious person is a pesky child missing part of his brain... I'm suggesting a particular kind of moron who goes around trying to hurt feelings without connecting to any sense of personal responsibility. Adorably, they think their 'intervention' is actually an enactment of their social responsiblity to save the non-believers through harassment tactics. Someone who walks up to me suggesting I'm going to suck on an everlasting sh!t pop is gonna get handled, believe me.
An aside I've been meaning to offer for a while: Some are upset that science has a role in snipping the marbles off religion these days but I do believe religion drew first blood (and not metaphorically).
|
|
It's the unyielding sanctimony of the type of believer who would say something so incomprehensibly stupid. Some believe things that cannot be proven... at all... and yet they delight in ramming "I'm right! You're wrong!" down your throat. It's like dealing with a pesky child missing part of his brain who insists on telling you that you were born to make sandwiches and nothing else. Why should we be bothered? Because we're being doinked in the ribs and deliberately called out, and that's bothersome. Of course I am not saying that a religious person is a pesky child missing part of his brain... I'm suggesting a particular kind of moron who goes around trying to hurt feelings without connecting to any sense of personal responsibility. Adorably, they think their 'intervention' is actually an enactment of their social responsiblity to save the non-believers through harassment tactics. Someone who walks up to me suggesting I'm going to suck on an everlasting sh!t pop is gonna get handled, believe me.
Just that it brings to mind the idea of ethnic clensing. Two tribes of guys from Africa, one from the "Christian" tribe and one from the "Atheist" tribe. The guy from the Christian tribe comes right out and says the Atheist deserves to die according to his ideology and it's a darn shame, but when the guys with machetes come to chop him up the Christian isn't going to do a thing but shake his head solemnly and shrug. It's the system, and there's no use opposing or trying to change the system, because then the guys with machetes would just come after me too...
Damned if you do, damned if you don't?
I did not say, nor did I suggest that the person "walks up to me suggesting...". One person asked and the other person answered. If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.
Of course, then -- apparently -- Christians are accused of not "going to do a thing but shake his head solemnly and shrug."
Moff, your response to me ain't dere.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Damned if you do, damned if you don't?
I did not say, nor did I suggest that the person "walks up to me suggesting...". One person asked and the other person answered. If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.
Of course, then -- apparently -- Christians are accused of not "going to do a thing but shake his head solemnly and shrug."
Not to jump back into the thread, but...
I don't think that what Grimcleaver meant was "the Christian tribe should've warned/saved the Atheist tribe about the machete weilding bastards" I think what he meant was "the Christian tribe should shut the f&&+ up about the machete weilding bastards."
Edit: And Sexi, you were doing a damn good job before I showed up. I particularly liked your talking objects analogy. One of the best I've seen. Hats off to you.
|
|
Some believe things that cannot be proven... at all... and yet they delight in ramming "I'm right! You're wrong!" down your throat.
If I am doing this, I truly apologize. I do not mean to "ram" anything down anyone's throat. I am simply trying to do my best to justify and explain what I believe and why based on questions that have been asked.
Maybe you are asking us either to lie about what we believe? Maybe you don't want us to answer? Just trying to figure out the expectation.
|
|
I don't think that what Grimcleaver meant was "the Christian tribe should've warned/saved the Atheist tribe about the machete weilding bastards" I think what he meant was "the Christian tribe should shut the f!@! up about the machete weilding bastards."
Apparently I am denser than the average person. I don't know what the point trying to be made is.
If you want me to "shut up" -- fine -- I'm done.
Some believe things that cannot be proven... at all... and yet they delight in ramming "I'm right! You're wrong!" down your throat.If I am doing this, I truly apologize. I do not mean to "ram" anything down anyone's throat. I am simply trying to do my best to justify and explain what I believe and why based on questions that have been asked.
Maybe you are asking us either to lie about what we believe? Maybe you don't want us to answer? Just trying to figure out the expectation.
Bill, I didn't think you were ramming anything anywhere. I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about people who want to suggest that they know I'm going to come to a bad end because I don't lock step with their particular sky daddy of the many. It's rude, and dealing with such types is often why atheists often grow to be quite rude themselves.
I am not afraid of a believer's answers because I find they're answers to be historically inaccurate and logically underfunded. There is no fear in my not wanting to be lectured by someone who chooses to believe what somebody said millenia ago. There is no superstition alive within me that causes me to worry "What if I'm wrong and St. Peter is going to hit the "Drop" button on me because I greatly relish touching myself?!" It's just an aggravation I don't need. Life is hard enough. Someone attempting to explain to me that I'm going to hell is clearly going to unlock my lips on the entire subject, and that's not good for anyone because I think we should all live and let live and zip up our judgementalism a bit. Unless of course we see a religion spring up that allows for baby molesting and cannabalism... then it's time for all good people to strap on the steel toes.
I could explain how we would all be better off if we turned our attentions toward the things that are actually killing us, such as cyanobacterium which are presently turning the oceans into acidic pools of death at the rate of a football field an hour... but that would be a serious downer and most people don't want to hear it so I've learned to keep my mouth shut unless I'm specifically around people who want to hear it.
Moff, your response to me ain't dere.?
Your response above where you quote me and Grim and only responded to Grim. I saw your later response and replied.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't think that what Grimcleaver meant was "the Christian tribe should've warned/saved the Atheist tribe about the machete weilding bastards" I think what he meant was "the Christian tribe should shut the f!@! up about the machete weilding bastards."Apparently I am denser than the average person. I don't know what the point trying to be made is.
If you want me to "shut up" -- fine -- I'm done.
Dude, Moff, no, not at all. Maybe I'm the dense one. The topic of discussion was why atheists gets pissed about being told we are going to go to hell. The thrust (as I was reading it) was in the vein of unsolicited advice regarding our fate. You, my friend, have not crossed that line or come even close to crossing the line of unsolicted damnation. You've been patient, kind, and thorough in your efforts on this thread. You have not attempted to convert us, and when forced to say we risk being hellbound, have been sensitive about that topic. I'm the one going into aggressive attack mode, and that's one of the reasons I'm trying to back out of here. I need to shut the f@&~ up because as much as I disagree with you and Lady Aurora, I think you're both good people with whom I could get along, game, and have the occassional religious conversation.
Dude, Moff, no, not at all. Maybe I'm the dense one. The topic of discussion was why atheists gets pissed about being told we are going to go to hell. The thrust (as I was reading it) was in the vein of unsolicited advice regarding our fate. You, my friend, have not crossed that line or come even close to crossing that line. You've been patient, kind, and thorough in your efforts on this thread. I'm the one going into aggressive attack mode, and that's one of the reasons I'm trying to back out of here. I need to shut the f%&% up because as much as I disagree with you and Lady Aurora, I think you're both good people with whom I could get along, game, and have the occassional religious conversation.
Ditto. I never put Moff in that group. Not sure what's going on here. I didn't read all the posts in this thread... maybe I missed something.
|
|
Dude, Moff, no, not at all. Maybe I'm the dense one. The topic of discussion was why atheists gets pissed about being told we are going to go to hell. The thrust (as I was reading it) was in the vein of unsolicited advice regarding our fate. You, my friend, have not crossed that line or come even close to crossing that line. You've been patient, kind, and thorough in your efforts on this thread. I'm the one going into aggressive attack mode, and that's one of the reasons I'm trying to back out of here. I need to shut the f!@& up because as much as I disagree with you and Lady Aurora, I think you're both good people with whom I could get along, game, and have the occassional religious conversation.
I think I shed a tear.
Seriously, I agree with you. I would like to think/believe that you, me, Lady Aurora, Sexi Golem, and Grimcleaver could all sit around a table and have a great game going.
Religion and beliefs are always touchy subjects. I am (pleasantly) surprised that this thread has remained "civil" as long as it has.
If you "back out", make it temporary. You and Sexi have and continue to come up with some great points.
As to the "thrust" -- My wife went to a Gen Con many, many years ago. She was accosted by somebody passing out tracts telling her that she was going to hell. Her response was that she was a Christian and that he wasn't helping matters. He ignored her and continued to tell her that she was going to hell. It pissed her off and (in theory) they are both on the same side.
Unfortunately, people are people and there are good examples and bad examples of all groups. I just hope that I am among the "good" and can help to counter some of the "bad" examples that are running amuk.
|
|
Ditto. I never put Moff in that group. Not sure what's going on here. I didn't read all the posts in this thread... maybe I missed something.
I was probably reading too much between the lines (so to speak). I think that Sexi was saying that he was offended by people telling him that he was going to hell. I took that to mean that he was offended by things that I might have said. (Apparently I was the only one who thought this.) I was going off of this assumption and no one else was and apparently I was rather confused.
I think it's all better now. Carry on...
Bill, ...Someone remembers my name. (I don't know why I thought that was funny...)
First and last, my man. But of course! :)
I think 99.9% preach the same salvation plan. As Moff pointed out, they can vary wildly on the "add-ons" and non-critical issues but they're not really important anyway.
I would say this statement extends to all religions, not just Christian denominations. As a secularist, I think the whole god thing is a non-critical add-on. As a Jew, I find God a useful metaphor.
An insult is a statement or action which affronts or demeans someone.
Early in my life I realized that one has to choose to be offended. There are people who will do things they know other people will choose to be offended by, but the choice to be offended falls to the "victim". The best thing I ever did in my life was to choose never to be offended. Here is my secret to happiness: Never take anything personally; especially things which are meant personally.
I guess it is a choice, up to a certain point of course.
On some level I've always thought that when people were rude in public it was my job to big brother them back to a social reality, by any means necessary.
I can seperate from a situation emotionally when I feel I need to, and I have a well developed sense of humor, but people homing in on me and not letting up is invasive and presumptuous and I choose to let it irk me. I'm not victimized by such behavior so much as challenged by it.
|
|
Moff: Various sects of Christianity proclaim various paths to salvation. Some say that baptism is necessary, others say that complete absolution is available upon request. I am doubtful that other religions say that they are merely a path to salvation rather than the path to salvation. The point is that there are a lot of choices out there and I don't see how a person can know that they made the right one.
The only "denomination" that I know of that actually states that baptism is one of the requirements towards salvation is the Church of Christ. Personally, I feel that it is just an additional thing and the belief in that or absence doesn't really change things.
Pretty much every denomination that I am aware of believes that salvation comes in two "steps" -- confession and acceptance. Confession usually isn't some huge long list of every wrong ever committed and more like an all encompassing "Whoa, I have really screwed up in a number of areas". Acceptance is accepting/believing that God/Jesus has taken care of it.
As far as other Religions are concerned -- I believe that (based on my limited studies) that the few monotheistic religions are the only ones that feel that their's is the only way. There is a lot of debate that surrounds Judaism and whether or not they will go to heaven. (And I really don't know that much about it.) Islam seems to indicate that you have to be muslim, but also that if you are really, really, really good, you still might not make it depending on Allah's mood but it is definately based on what you do. Hinduism seems to be rather similar in that what you do and how good you are now determines what your next life will be. Buddha seems to indicate that enlightenment is determined by ... self or something. I really don't get Buddhaism -- I looked into it a little bit and there seemed to be more contradictions regarding what Buddhaism is or even what enlightenment is that I have seen with Christianity. Anyway, I am not sure what Buddha would say if I felt that the best path to enlightenment was through the teachings of Christ and as I understand it, enlightenment is still rather vague.
There are a lot of choices out there.
Let's assume that none of them are right. Are any of the believers any worse off by worshipping what they want. Overall, most religions teach "be groovy to each other". Probably not necessarily a bad thing.
Let's assume that all of them are right. Unlikely as many of the teachings are in direct conflict, but let's assume anyway. It seems to me like your choices are "Yes, Maybe, Maybe, and Maybe".
I don't know if this really helps or not. For me, I think I would want to know exactly how to get there rather than hope that some god (or equivalent) is in a good mood when I die.
|
|
An insult is a statement or action which affronts or demeans someone.Early in my life I realized that one has to choose to be offended. There are people who will do things they know other people will choose to be offended by, but the choice to be offended falls to the "victim". The best thing I ever did in my life was to choose never to be offended. Here is my secret to happiness: Never take anything personally; especially things which are meant personally.
I don't know. All the "training" I have received at work on "harassment" seems to indicate that it has nothing to do with the recipient.
I, however, agree with you.
I really don't get Buddhaism -- I looked into it a little bit and there seemed to be more contradictions regarding what Buddhaism is or even what enlightenment is that I have seen with Christianity. Anyway, I am not sure what Buddha would say if I felt that the best path to enlightenment was through the teachings of Christ and as I understand it, enlightenment is still rather vague.
Nothing vague at all, just not what you're probably expecting. Enlightenment is when you've dropped thinking of your "self" as separate from everything else: you cease grasping, and as a result, cease to suffer. Enlightenment is a simple state of emotional and spiritual harmony, or, in simpler terms, it's when nothing at all bothers you anymore, or can bother you. If it sounds like Heaven, the biggest difference is that you don't need to die first (there's no separate afterlife; there's just life. It's how you live it that counts).
It's worth mentioning that Thich Nhat Hanh (important Buddhist teacher and writer) believed that Jesus had more or less discovered enlightenment himself, because a lot of the "love everyone" and "turn the other cheek" stuff was part of the Buddha's formula. No jealousy or griping there. If the Buddha figured it out, other people can, too. (But then Christ starting calling himself God, which is sort of nutty, from an enlightenment standpoint.)
Here's one I've been sitting on for a while. It's not even a question it is some inside info.Why do atheists get offended when people tell them they believe they are going to hell? Especially since they do not believe in hell?
Answer: Because it is an insult. Do not misunderstand me it is not like an insult. It is not something that can be misconstrued as an insult. That is simply what it is.
Okay, I can't respond to this without further explanation on your part, Sexi. Are you referring to encountering the exampled question here on this messageboard or just in general? (straight to the point - are you throwing this at me or just the general listening audience?)
I think 99.9% preach the same salvation plan. As Moff pointed out, they can vary wildly on the "add-ons" and non-critical issues but they're not really important anyway.I would say this statement extends to all religions, not just Christian denominations. As a secularist, I think the whole god thing is a non-critical add-on. As a Jew, I find God a useful metaphor.
This is entirely true. One of the reasons I find religious persecution (which is dumb anyway) to be so entirely silly is that most religions are preaching the exact same things, but with different names for their gods. Its the minute differences that seem to make people so angry.
I should probably just look at it a little more in depth.
And here I thought that my explanation was, if anything, too complicated! It's probably the simplest religion, requiring no complex mechanics of sacrifice, divine intervention, miracles, or the afterlife (which is a big barrier to people who pre-suppose these elements).
The Buddha's teachings are founded on four (4) "noble truths" that (according to him) follow from one another: (1) there is suffering in life; (2) suffering has a cause (craving, emotional grasping, etc.); (3) this cause can be lessened or even removed, leading to a lessening or removal of suffering; and (4) there is a clear way to remove the cause of suffering: awareness and right thoughts, actions, etc. (the "Eightfold Noble Path").
Intellectually understanding the core concept of Buddhism (especially without all the random "add-ons" that form parts of the traditions in Tibet and parts of SE Asia) is easy; a Wikipedia search will probably do it. To emotionally understand it, and to practice it, can be quite difficult.
Hope this is of some use. I've tried to provide an explanation simple enough to be helpful (more complex ones, in my experience, are useless at best and misleading at worst for people with limited background in the basics), hopefully without coming across as being preachy. I'll stop now, though, unless any questions are specifically directed my way.
**Now back to your regularly-scheduled Christianity discussion**
Okay, I can't respond to this without further explanation on your part, Sexi. Are you referring to encountering the exampled question here on this messageboard or just in general? (straight to the point - are you throwing this at me or just the general listening audience?)
Naw not really. One of your posts caused me to ask myself that question. This is just the answer I came to and I was wondering what people thought of it.
...most religions are preaching the exact same things, but with different names for their gods. Its the minute differences that seem to make people so angry.
As to your second point, no one can possibly disagree: look at the Sunni-Shi'ite schisms in Iraq for evidence. As to the first, though, it's really true only if by "most religions" you mean "Christianity and Islam." Of course, they're the two biggest (and by far the most outspoken) so it's easy to think that.
...most religions are preaching the exact same things, but with different names for their gods. Its the minute differences that seem to make people so angry.As to your second point, no one can possibly disagree: look at the Sunni-Shi'ite schisms in Iraq for evidence. As to the first, though, it's really true only if by "most religions" you mean "Christianity and Islam." Of course, they're the two biggest (and by far the most outspoken) so it's easy to think that.
I disagree. All (or most) religions preach similar lifestyles. Thus, all (or most) of them believe that these actions are righteous (or helpful and good) and lead to whatever it is the goal of the religion is (heaven, enlightenment, better next incarnation, etc). Even the metaphysical bit about where you go after you die and why (and other stuff, to extensive to list) seem like mere details next to the fact that every single major religion on earth preaches peace, kindness, love, and not harming others.
That last bit is, of course, my opinion. Many people will disagree that the metaphysical is unimportant; perhaps its the most important, I don't really have a say in that. But no one can deny that most faiths have the same moral code at their core.
I disagree. All (or most) religions preach similar lifestyles. Thus, all (or most) of them believe that these actions are righteous (or helpful and good) and lead to whatever it is the goal of the religion is (heaven, enlightenment, better next incarnation, etc). Even the metaphysical bit about where you go after you die and why (and other stuff, to extensive to list) seem like mere details next to the fact that every single major religion on earth preaches peace, kindness, love, and not harming others.
That last bit is, of course, my opinion. Many people will disagree that the metaphysical is unimportant; perhaps its the most important, I don't really have a say in that. But no one can deny that most faiths have the same moral code at their core.
OK, I'm with you now. And I agree totally, except maybe with your assessment that it's unimportant WHY one should act "virtuously." Many atheists practice kindness and non-violence, but I wouldn't say that makes them religious-- it just means they have a sense of self-preservation (those "virtues" are what make a society function more smoothly, after all). So, in my opion, a "religion" is a set of trappings or metaphysics that we apply to what is essentially nothing more than self-serving behavior.
...except maybe with your assessment that it's unimportant WHY one should act "virtuously."
I apologize for not being clear--the "why" isn't unimportant. By the metaphysical I meant the ideas of heaven/what happens after death, the soul, existance/name/number of God(s), etc. The "whys" do differ a bit between religions, though mostly the difference is the difference between the names of whatever place they are trying to go to. Many beleive that something is good because it is just GOOD; the whole "do the gods love it because it is holy or is it holy because the gods love it" thing.
I apologize for not being clear--the "why" isn't unimportant. By the metaphysical I meant the ideas of heaven/what happens after death, the soul, existance/name/number of God(s), etc. The "whys" do differ a bit between religions, though mostly the difference is the difference between the names of whatever place they are trying to go to. Many beleive that something is good because it is just GOOD; the whole "do the gods love it because it is holy or is it holy because the gods love it" thing.
Not at all--it was I who needed to be clearer. I do want to emphasize, though, that the differences in metaphysics are a lot wider than merely names or numbers of gods-- some religions have no gods at all, for example, and most of them do not advocate a "place" to go to. It's not just differences in names, but the whole conception of what our place in the world is. Animists believe in nature spirits to be placated; Christians want to go to heaven to be with a God; Buddhists just don't want to be miserable.
I dwell on this because most people (yourself not included) seem to believe that a religion automatically involves a god or gods who advocate what I described as "self-serving behavior," but on the basis of receiving some sort of reward in the afterlife. All of that isn't necessarily true, except for the similar advocacy of love and non-violence that you pointed out.
|
|
Thus, all (or most) of them believe that these actions are righteous (or helpful and good) and lead to whatever it is the goal of the religion is (heaven, enlightenment, better next incarnation, etc).
As I understand Christianity, this is not true. The idea behind Christianity is that the "goal" has already been attained (you are a Christian and therefore going to heaven). The idea then is that since you are a Christian (since God was gracious enough to save our hides or something like that), we should now use our efforts to be as good as possible to honor God who made this possible.
The end result may be similar, but I feel that the difference is fairly significant.
The end result may be similar, but I feel that the difference is fairly significant.
I agree, but sadly, many of the consequences of that difference are unfortunate ones (self-avowed Christians who practice intolerance, cruelty, hypocracy, or even blatantly evil behavior but rationalize it on the basis of their being Christians). These folks are, I hope, a small subset, and certianly none of the people participating in this thread are that way--or they'd be off oppressing people, instead of engaging in peaceful and friendly discussions!--but I have met more than a few in the past who have used exactly the logic I describe. As Mario Puzo points out, men very seldomly act out of gratitude for what has been done for them in the past, but out of anticipation of what they might get later on.
Thus, all (or most) of them believe that these actions are righteous (or helpful and good) and lead to whatever it is the goal of the religion is (heaven, enlightenment, better next incarnation, etc).As I understand Christianity, this is not true. The idea behind Christianity is that the "goal" has already been attained (you are a Christian and therefore going to heaven). The idea then is that since you are a Christian (since God was gracious enough to save our hides or something like that), we should now use our efforts to be as good as possible to honor God who made this possible.
The end result may be similar, but I feel that the difference is fairly significant.
But you still have to do certain things to gain access to heaven. Repenting and asking forgiveness of sins is required. If the goal has already been attained, why do you need the religion in the first place? The point (or one of the points) in christianity is that if you don't ask forgiveness, you are not forgiven and you still go to hell. This has been said several times on this thread.
Also, even though someone else has already "attained the goal for you", as you claim, the moral code is still there.you are a Christian and therefore going to heaven
I repeat this part to make a point. Does simply labeling yourself as a Christian allow you access into heaven? Do you present the "Christian card" at the gates? From what I know of Christianity and from what I've read on this thread, the answer is no. Being a Christian does not automatically grant you access. Granted, the actions required are considered a vital part of being a Christian, and you could argue that without them you are not a true Christian, but they are still required.
|
|
I repeat this part to make a point. Does simply labeling yourself as a Christian allow you access into heaven? Do you present the "Christian card" at the gates? From what I know of Christianity and from what I've read on this thread, the answer is no. Being a Christian does not automatically grant you access. Granted, the actions required are considered a vital part of being a Christian, and you could argue that without them you are not a true Christian, but they are still required.
Either you are a Christian or you're not. There aren't really any degrees in Christianity as far as the "goal" is concerned. Either you are going to heaven or you're not. The problem comes in truly defining a Christian. As I read the Bible, it seems to me that if you are a Christian, then you would be exibiting/showing signs of "the fruit of the Spirit", etc. If you claim to be a Christian and are being a jerk, I have a hard time believing that you were truly repentant to begin with in which case I question whether or not you are really a Christian. Just claiming that you are a Christian doesn't make it so.
I guess that the point that I am trying to make is that Christians shouldn't have to worry about whether or not they are good "enough". If a friend gives you a house, you should be good to them. You would probably do what they asked (within reason/ability). You shouldn't worry about it at all, you should just be nice. I feel that it is similar with Christianity. You are not working towards getting the house. The house is already yours. It seems that other religions have this constant struggle in trying to obtain the house and you won't know that you got the house until after you die. I do think that there are some people who think that they have the house after reciting some magic formula and then feel that they are done and that they don't have to acknowledge who (in theory) gave them the house. They probably think that they have the house because of what they did. Sometimes people like this will put down others for not having their house yet -- when, ironically, they probably don't have one either.
I have no idea about hypocrits. I have my own theories (I've never seen a truly repentant -- step '1' -- person brag about it to others), but I don't have to worry about it. My point is how the Christian attitude/behavior/life should be. If they are truly saved, then they should be showing how grateful they are by doing more than simply lip-service. If you ever come across a "Christian" that is beligerent and just being a jerk, ask them what fruit of the Spirit they are currently demonstrating. That, at least, should force them to think about what they are doing.
At least within this thread, I hope that I am demonstrating some of patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Either you are a Christian or you're not. There aren't really any degrees in Christianity as far as the "goal" is concerned. Either you are going to heaven or you're not.
My opinion is either you adhear to (and keep sacred) the Ten Commandments, or you are not a Christian. (period)
It is all right there in black and white folks. It is NOT hard.
This here's an aspect of Christianity I've always had some trouble with. I'm curious how this works. So a Christian is saved from the moment he confesses and accepts Christ, right? What happens if he backs out? What if he decides it's all just bunk and becomes something else--a wiccan or whatever. Is he still saved?
On that basis I also wonder then, because having been Mormon for quite some time, that LDS folks confess and accept Christ as much as any protestant. Makes me wonder if that doesn't make Mormons saved according to protestant theology as well. That would be interesting.
It makes me smile a bit to think of me and Sexi and other folks showing up at the pearly gates based on commitments we turned away from a whole long time ago, but that we're okay anyway because we did it. Weird. I imagine he'd probably hit Saint Peter and that'd do it for both of us...
It makes me smile a bit to think of me and Sexi and other folks showing up at the pearly gates based on commitments we turned away from a whole long time ago, but that we're okay anyway because we did it. Weird. I imagine he'd probably hit Saint Peter and that'd do it for both of us...
Who's bringing the beer? Even if heaven is a dry county, that should stop at the Gates, right?
It makes me smile a bit to think of me and Sexi and other folks showing up at the pearly gates based on commitments we turned away from a whole long time ago, but that we're okay anyway because we did it. Weird. I imagine he'd probably hit Saint Peter and that'd do it for both of us...
I am sorry, but if your free-will has turned away from the Ten Commandments you will burn in hell.
Like choosing to obey the speed limit or not, you can choose to break the law but then you have to pay a fine. If you choose to break the Ten Commandments, then you will pay the ultimate fine.
Look into your heart. Only you know if you can stand before Saint Peter's judgment.
Only you and your free-will can keep the Ten Commandments.
My opinion is either you adhear to (and keep sacred) the Ten Commandments, or you are not a Christian. (period)
Okay. Without offending Casca RL any more than is absolutely necessary by my next statement...I just want to say here and now that I DO NOT believe this to be true! TaDa! Extreme differences between professing Christians demonstrated before your very eyes!
I'm sorry Casca but, though the principles of the Ten Commandments reveal important characteristics of God (and therefore we Christians should demonstrate those "principles") - Old Testament law largely useless now that we have grace. But the Bible does say that if you choose to "live by the law", rather than by grace, that you will "die by the law". I leave it to you to interpret what that means.Grimcleaver, as far as your comments about possible salvation despite turning away from "the faith" or even turning to a non-Christian faith, you are bringing up another important division in the Christian church. Some people do believe in the concept you talked about - namely that if a person *ever* confessing, repents and claims Christ as his/her Savior, then that person is forever sealed with the Spirit. My mother believes this way. I'll just say that I absolutely do not! I think the Bible is fairly clear about this issue. If someone is truly committed to Christ (that sticky definition of a "true Christian") then it is impossible, IMO, to ever reject Him for any significant amount of time (a matter of weeks or months, maybe). I just don't personally believe that the indwelling Spirit would allow a person to sin without consequence; nor can I imagine God turning a blind eye to blatant rejection by someone who is truly His child. But it's a complex issue, to be sure, and probably not worth debating here. I just wanted everyone on the boards to be clear that this is not *my* personal view on these subjects - I don't believe obeying the 10 Commandments is the qualifier for being a Christian; and I don't believe that just because someone prayed "The" Prayer (for forgiveness) at some point in their life that they are then guarenteed a ticket to paradise (that's neither logical nor practical). The only way we can even kinda guess who the true Christians are (and some people can fool most of the people most of the time) is by what kinds of attitudes and behaviors said person is characterized by; even then, sometimes we get fooled by seemingly upright folks who are later revealed as evil wretches. The Bible is clear though - God won't be fooled. As has been noted before, some people that were generally considered "sinners" will be surprise residents of Heaven and some people that were generally considered "Christians" will be surprise residents of Hell.
I guess that the point that I am trying to make is that Christians shouldn't have to worry about whether or not they are good "enough". If a friend gives you a house, you should be good to them. You would probably do what they asked (within reason/ability). You shouldn't worry about it at all, you should just be nice. I feel that it is similar with Christianity.
But this is the point I'm trying to make. You don't already have the house; you need to ask the friend for forgiveness first. The understanding you have is that if you ask forgiveness, you will get the house--that's what it seems to me in Christianity.
I will give you that what I said earlier about all religions being exactly the same is wrong. (I still maintain that they are incredably similar.) In Christianity only forgiveness for past transgressions of breaking the moral code is required, but this is still an act that must be perfomed before being allowed to enter heaven.I think I understand where you are coming from--the repentance is an essential part of being a "true" Christian. So by my using the term "Christian", you automatically assume that this has been done. To clerify then: Even if repentance is required to become a true Christian with rights to heaven, that is still an act required for your goal. I admit that this seems to be different in this aspect from non-Christian religions.