Would heaven be appealling to you if athiests were there? Even better, lets include all Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, wiccans or any belief system outside of Christianity?
Absolutely. The heaven that is described by the bible is one where the heart is judged and the intentions as well as the faith and the works. Either way it goes, God has the final say so.. There is a saying I heard that is very relevant: God doesn't choose the qualified. He qualifies the chosen. With this in mind, anyone that God chooses to enter his gates have been shown approved by him
It is written that all men will be drawn to Christ.
It looks like what was written was wrong.
Possibly... or possibly that is opinion as well.
When I see "It looks like..." That to me, says clearly it is opinion/perspective.
We are all just giving our opinions here.
SwordofManticorE said "It is written that all men will be drawn to Christ."
You don't see a problem with this statement from ATM's perspective?
ATM said "It looks like what was written was wrong."
Do you think it's simply his opinion that not all men will be drawn to Christ when he himself is not drawn to Christ which means that not all men.
On a second note are you comfortable following a religion that originally didn't include women?
I think the point of these threads is discussing points of view and opinions with ppl whose differ from your own. I don't disagree with the Bible, I believe it to be fact so "He will draw all men unto Him" is not, in my belief, an opinion so it would not make sense for me to argue the point. However, if I believe something is stated as if it were fact and I disagreed with the opinion... it just makes sense for me to address it.
So you think it's fact that all (MEN) are drawn to Christ while ATM and myself are not? Do you feel every word of the bible is rock solid and unshakable and every person who question the accuracy is simply wrong?
"men" means "mankind" as in humans.
Yes, I feel the Bible is rock solid and I don't feel that there's anything wrong with questioning it... it's a process.
Actually if you understood what was thought of women at the time of the bible you'd know they meant men and not man kind. Plus not that term is not human kind, it's man kind. Women were treaded like cattle and I could find the scripture that shows this. But how do you deal with all the conflicting and sometimes wrong information?
The actual verse is this:
Jn 12:32 NIV
"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."
The literal translation from the Greek is this:
"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, all will draw to myself"
But, you don't question the Bible, we do.
You may believe it to be fact, but it isn't a fact, far from it. The fact is most people are not drawn to Christ. Sorry, if reality does not meet your belief standards.
It doesn't say "All men will be drawn to Christ at all minutes of every day and definitely respond in the affirmative."
But ATM seems to think it does.
You see Chris, this is the kind of dishonesty you exhibit here by making a claim, having your claim refuted because it is a delusion (contradicts reality) and then make up a lie in order to cover yourself. Then, you'll sit there whining and complaining others are insulting you.
If one man is not drawn to Christ then you can't say "All" men, at the most you could say "Most men…"
Then the question becomes, how do you know that 'all men' are NOT drawn to Christ?
I know this is splitting hairs (or will seem like it) but if people think that Christianity might be a good thing, maybe think they should look into it, maybe in their secret hearts, or at a very young age, think that maybe this does actually make sense, even if they never become Christians, then at some point they are indeed drawn to Christ.
That was my point.
What I should have probably elaborated was that the verse did not specify that all men (people) would become Christian. The Bible certainly makes clear that there are plenty of people who will not become Christian.
Sorry Chris, but we know exactly what you meant, backpedaling out of it now is simply disingenuous. But then, that's how you operate here. There are billions of people who are not drawn to Christ in any way, shape or form. Try being honest for a change and admit you're wrong.
Assuming that I'm wrong (which I'm not) and acknowledging that I do admit when I'm wrong and apologize when necessary (and if you've forgotten, then shame on you, since you were once the recipient) the question then becomes, when will you?
Stellar dishonesty, Chris. Please feel free to whine and complain about being called out on your dishonesty, as well, painting a wonderful portrait of an upstanding Christian.
Ah you. Every time I think maybe you're finally going to have a conversation, you don't!
Remember when you said that in order to have an adult conversation, I must talk like an adult? And have you ever heard that you train people how to treat you? Now you know why I don't talk to you like you were an adult!
You would actually have to honest before engaging in conversation, Chris. Do that first and then work on other skills later.
I agree, you would have to be honest. Glad you understand that.
Funny how it is you who is being caught in lies.
You keep saying that but you don't produce the evidence. What's your proof?
Just that I contradict you?
Yes, that is exactly the kind of dishonesty you keep portraying here. Stunning. The fact that I need to show you again demonstrates that you're incapable of maintaining any kind of discussion without having to resort to showing you the same thing over and over again.
Of course, can we now expect the same old song and dance until you once again ask for evidence of your dishonesty. Unbelievable.
Yes, song and dance.
This was what I expected from you. You might have sneered and condescended to 'remind' me of whatever you think these lies are, but now I think my original impulse was right. There were no lies, not even in your eyes. You just think that saying it over and over again will obfuscate the truth.
And you accuse me of lying because, as you tried to accuse me of at the eleventh hour in a lame redirection attempt, you think that putting the spotlight on me will take it off of you.
Like I said.
THAT is the lie you're accusing me of?
Either you're even more stupid than you think I think you are or your hubris truly knows no bounds.
One of many that have been pointed out to you.
Yes, I would expect you'd resort to personal insults after being caught in a lie.
Still playing Chess after his king has been captured and killed....and with no other pieces left on the board, still finds a way to "move" pieces anyway.
Thank you! I have known that about ATM for years! I just never thought I'd read it from YOU!
Although I appreciate your attempt at humor, it is sad that you have decided to evade personal responsibility and resort to this level of behavior.
Trust me, I am not evading personal responsibility.
It's all too easy to claim victory, but no matter how much you may believe it, simply saying that the other side doesn't have a leg to stand on is not the same as proving it. And no matter how many times you say I'm evading reality, you've as yet to prove it. And I'm talking about you, not you and anyone else. I know you firmly believe that you have pegged me and called me out, but in reality what you've done is prove how little you know me, even the me I present in the forums, let alone the real life me.
Then why is it that you want to put the onus on the opposition, by declaring your beliefs valid, simply because they cannot be proven to be impossible? The fact is that your beliefs are completely absurd, and, believe me, I am not saying that just to be cruel. These Christian beliefs, along with all other religious beliefs, are complete nonsense. But, somehow, you think yours are different from the others. OK....let's see your proof.
Why don't you take personal responsibility, and provide OBJECTIVE proof of your assertions, and stop asking me to prove your assertions false? Since it is you who is asserting a positive, the onus is upon you to provide proof. I believe that is the standard that society has established. Asking me to disprove your assertions has already called your credibility into question....as you've made an assertion, then, immediately, you hide behind a mask....shielded from responsibility.
" Everything except the truth wears, and needs to wear, a mask."
I guess I have a severe reading comprehension problem....so why don't you just start using PICTURES instead of these incomprehensible words. Thanks. Meanwhile I'll go sign up for Remedial Reading 101.
I don't declare my beliefs valid just because I say so. I simply say that neither are my beliefs invalid simply because you say so. Your inability to accept what I say in any way is not the same as there being no truth to it. And by the same token, a rigid unwillingness to look honestly and completely at what someone is saying, even if you still eventually disagree with it, is not the same as disproving it.
So, then, what would that make your beliefs? valid/not valid....I suppose? Thanks for clearing that up.
Then where would you like this line of reasoning to stop....Peter Pan?
I have looked at this, honestly, and it reeks of delusion. All you have to do is PROVE your assertions, then you won't have to be looking at this through the lenses of "the inability to disprove" it. Why are you asking that we all do this the hard way? As you know, the fastest way to get from point A to point B is a straight line. Why are you asking me to move the HOUSE back and forth when you could simply move the PAINT BRUSH back and forth?
And I, mister hiding behind a fake name, am not wearing a mask.
This is not about my username. It is about your inability to accept personal responsibility. Like...RIGHT NOW! You are trying to evade personal responsibility by creating a straw man argument. Good try, but I'm not that attention deficient. We can talk about my username at a later date perhaps, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. So take responsibility.....stop the deception.
No, I was not.
I was pointing out that someone who hides behind a fake name (which is a common internet tactic for someone who just enjoys yelling at people) might want to think twice before offhandedly accusing someone else of evading responsibility or wearing a mask. I was not evading responsibility, I have taken full responsibility for myself and my beliefs. I attempt to deceive no one, and to be accused of it is in and of itself an evasion.
You want to meet me on a level field, here I am.
Thanks for your opinion, however it is irrelevant and does nothing to assuage the dilemma your beliefs face. Attacking the messenger is a common fallacy used by opponents who seek to evade. Let's just stick to your beliefs. Like I said, we can discuss the username later. And btw, even if I was car thief, and I saw you steal a car, I could still accuse you(and rightfully so)of being a car thief. WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Yet you have made claims that you can't prove, and could not prove, even if your life depended on it.
Then you are saying that it is the listener, and not the speaker, who is responsible for providing proof of the speaker's claims. Wow! I am such an evader....
No we're not on a level field. You brought an imaginary friend with you. Get rid of him, and the field will be level. Thanks
You are an evader.
Nice try, but I don't accept claims made on my behalf, especially those made by people who are antagonistic to my beliefs. If you want to say you don't agree, fine. If you want to start straw-man attacks of your own, then have a nice day.
There are many reasons for keeping an identity hidden here on HP. Especially when one is the minority. I rather like my friends who BTW have no idea of my convictions. I'm sure they might remain my friends, but I'd rather avoid the conversations. That being said if one tried hard enough I could be found.
I understand. For that reason, plus my wife was afraid that certain people ( not any of the ones here) might come after me for expressing certain opinions, I thought about using a fake name. But I knew that God would not credit it to me if I didn't have the courage of my convictions. So that's why I use my real name.
I'd like to offer an opinion here; it will appear that I am interrupting your discussion with Chris, and, if so, I apologize for that. I'm not trying to get in the middle of anything or broker a peace or accord of any kind. That said, here's what I think: ALL people (that would be men AND women) have been, are, or will be drawn to Jesus. We see it every day, in even the most anti religious people. But no sooner do they feel that pull to learn more about him, they are repelled by: the Bible, the Church, his followers, and decide that they don't want to fight their way through that mess to get to him.
That's what I think anyway, and I get it - completely. The followers of Christ (in general) have done more to turn people away from him than they've EVER done to draw them. And I think it's because it's a hell of a lot easier to command, judge, condemn, and belittle other people according to a written set of laws than it is to love them, help them, and care for them according to the spoken word of the one they claim to follow.
But, we know that can't be true, that there are a lot of people in the world who know nothing about Jesus and probably never will. Perhaps, they may have heard the name, but that doesn't equate to them being drawn to Him.
It's the same with other gods and prophets, there are a lot of folks here who have heard the name Muhammad, but know nothing about him, other than he was an alleged prophet, but that again does not equate to them being drawn to him.
I see your point about those who do not know of Jesus. That's why I qualified with have been, will be, or are. Kinda to cover the whole shebang.
People can read the Bible, they can also read the Quran and the Torah, but that doesn't mean they are drawn towards the main characters or ideals portrayed in those books, they are simply educating themselves along with all the other books they might read.
To say that they are drawn towards Jesus just because they read the Bible is placing a biased perspective on them.
No, Mo, all people are NOT "drawn" to Christ. Not in the sense you mean. You are rationalizing your own belief system onto all others.
Most people, at one time or another, will want information either about Christ or about the people believing in him. The same way most people at one time or another will be interested in the Norse gods, the religious beliefs of ancient Egyptians or any other belief.
But they are asking for information about the belief, not about the actual creature that they know only as a myth, unreal. Or about the people that have the belief - why did people believe in Odin or Thor, how did it affect their daily lives, what did they do differently as a result of that belief?
I had no intention of rationalizing my beliefs "onto" anyone. They're mine, first of all, and they're hardly rational to begin with...lol
I see what you're saying, though, but you're making an awfully big assumption with "not in the way you mean." You might be closer to your target by saying not in the way you think I mean. I mean that in general, people who hear about Jesus find themselves initially interested in his words and actions. Then we Christians promptly push them away by ours.
And just as a point of information, I never participate in the existence of God argument or discussion. Till someone proves one way or the other, the point is moot. Belief is belief, and I share it as nothing more than that an make absolutely no attempt to rationalize it.
Trust me, you're not interrupting our discussion. A discussion is a two-way street with two people who are actually attempting to talk to each other. Every time I try to talk, I learn that it's not a discussion.
Of course, because the first thing that happens is you get called out on your dishonesty, then you go into whining and complaining about it.
What I love is that any little thing can be latched onto by you in an effort to avoid actually making a point. All you do is grab a phrase, repeat ad nauseum (and who needs proof if you simply repeat it over and over?) and claim victory.
Are you a politician in 'real life'?
So, when you make this stuff up, do you actually question your own integrity at all before hitting the Submit button?
When you become Christian you could have been any of these but you are no longer for the scripture says we are neither Jew nor gentile anymore; now we become the body of Christ, as we will be in Heaven. One with Him; as the bride of Christ.
All are drawn to Christ; all have the opportunity to accept or reject.
Yes, Polly, once a Christian, the old has passed away and one is a new and beautiful creation in Christ ... one is now the Body of Christ and will be in Heaven. All do have a choice ... murders, thieves and the like, just as that one who was hanging on a cross next to Jesus ... is now in Heaven. The answer is, Yes, Heaven would be appealing, for there is no longer any condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. We are all sinners and have fallen short. It is a choice each one of us has the opportunity to choose.
"Sides" wouldn't matter, nobody is right or wrong, and everyone is equal, no superiority, hate, or discrimination...now that sounds like heaven to me
None of them will be atheists anymore to reach heaven.
You're only saying that because you want 72 virgins.
Read the quaran. It's all in there. Very poetic, I hear. Seventy two rhymed with something better than seventy. In Arabic. I hear if it had been written in English the rhyming number would have been negative two. One wonders how many suicide bombers we'd have if Mohammed had spoken English as a primary language.
Still Ive yet to meet a man who could handle one woman... good luck to him.
Can you imagine the cost of all those braces? 72 wives, 216 kids, 162 of them need braces x $5000 = $810,000. Ahhh No thanks.
Can you imagine the look on the faces of the Muslim guys if the whole 72 virgins thing does indeed turn out to be totally false? I mean, honestly, think about it...what will happen? I can't imagine they will get mad as I wouldn't think there is anger in Heaven, so, what then? Dear me. I can see it now if untrue, a lot of totally disgruntled, highly disappointed to say the very least, and likely more than a tad bit frustrated Muslim men with a look of total shock on their faces just sitting there virgin-less in Heaven....what a buzz-kill, huh?
He prefers women with experience.. How about 72 sluts...LOL
Ummm, I don't get the hole virgin thing in heaven. I don't even get it here on earth. Like being with a virgin is so much fun! But in heaven I would assume we don't have bodies and we won't be having babies so what would the point of sex be? So no thanks, someone who is willing to occasionally fool around with me (I imagine that's a tall order to ask, but doesn't take much time) is all I need here on earth.
And further, anyone who doesn't see that they don't get to have sex in heaven is a complete and utter moron. Evolution will take care of them.
Does that mean you aren't a Muslim? It sounds like it. Heathen.
No no no, it means I'm not a moron. Please pay attention. LOL.
wow... feeling kind of offended on behalf of the Muslims now... maybe I am just too easily offended.
Please Beth, anyone who blows himself up for 72 virgins in heaven where there are no bodies is a moron. Good bye, with any luck he was to stupid to take anyone with him. It's really that simple.
Obviously this is a bit off topic but the Bible says that we will be given new, perfect bodies. So if you believe in the Heaven of the Bible then yes, we will have bodies.
And we will, apparently, eat since there will be a tree that will bear twelve different crops, different fruits for each month (I think.)
So the idea of purity, sexually speaking, once again takes on a certain significance.
Is that your belief? I guess we would have to be on another planet if we have bodies, we would need air to breath.
Yes, that is my belief. In Revelations it kind of sounds like another planet, i.e. the New Jerusalem (which has very specific measurements and is one giant cube.
I don't know if we would need air. It doesn't mention, but that doesn't mean we won't. It says that there will be no sun or moon because we will be in God's presence all the time (unadorned, we will be able to look right at Him) and his Spirit will shine like the sun (there will be no night.)
And you believe that because it's written in the bible and don't question it? The bible also says only thousands will get there (I believe) or at least it says he will show mercy to thousands which I assume would mean heaven. Those are slime odds considering the billions of Christians who have existed, now exist or will exist.
I don't think it says only thousands will get there, but I'd have to go back and look. If that's true, that's actually not out of line with some of the things Jesus said.
And yeah, but that's a different conversation. I've thought about that a lot though. Jesus said that many who thought they were such good followers would in fact not be going to Heaven.
Chris, As much as I dislike asking this, I must. Do you even know how to read scripture?
A little bit Chris, but by what you wrote, it is evident you don't at all.
If you say so.
Before I bow to your superior "just because I say so," do you have something to show?
What, you don't like his interpretation so he doesn't know how to read? Nonsense.
Ocham's razor. When you ignore that principle and read bizarre shit into things sooner or later someone will comment. It's fate.
LOL. Cutting out assumptions are not what those who read the bible as truth are able to do. Where do you start and where do you end up? Who decides what to cut and how far to cut? Everyone thinks they can tell others how much to cut. So asking someone if they know how to interpret the bible is asking them if they know how to read.
But starting with the assumption that God is real leads to many more assumptions while cutting that very assumption leads to the same place (us in the universe) without nearly as many assumptions.
That's my use of Ocham's razor on the bible, but that certainly doesn't mean I can read any better than Chris. Actually there are very few people I can read better than and most of them are very young.
So you're saying that his karma is running over my dogma?
Unlike the others I'd like to thank you for your honesty. It makes for a much more interesting conversation.
No offense, but this sounds completely whimsical and absurd. How can middle aged adults will themselves to be taken in by such childish, unreal, and totally foolish perceptions of reality?
But....this is a prime example of Theists just downright refusing to use their critical thinking. How disturbing!
At this point, if you insist on believing that all adults who believe this do so only because they will themselves to do so, it is because that is what you need to believe. It is one thing to say you don't understand something and another to decide that it must fit a paradigm of your choosing. And although I've said this many times before, I will say it again. Both sides have plenty of people guilty of this. But if you can show a bit of charity and good will, the fact is that many people believe things that other people find incomprehensible, and for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean there aren't good reasons for the beliefs, it just means that you can't understand it. To decide that the person holding that belief is stupid, or a liar, or desiring to abdicate responsibility for their lives, is arrogant and also most of the time it's wrong.
And to continue the point, just because there are some people who use the beliefs for bad reasons, or to justify bad things, does not make the belief wrong in and of itself. Again, both sides have plenty of examples of people who take something and use it to bad ends.
As for it sounding whimsical and absurd, I completely understand. Not to beat the dead horse but I wasn't always a Christian and I wasn't looking for salvation when I became one. I ponder and wonder and think about this a lot.
Isn't that what faith is? To somehow will yourself to believe something, even in the absence of evidence?
But I don't think you understand....I do comprehend where your belief is coming from. I am the son of a minister. I was saved at an early age, and willed myself to believe in things that my rational mind found disturbingly absurd. Why? Because it was sanctioned and taught to me by my community...including my school. I simply believed what authority demanded I believe.
I do understand that there are times when people need comfort, because they are experiencing unbearable tragedies, and although religion is only false hope, if one believes in it, it can help assuage the grief. Some people just don't respond to false hope, but can only find hope in having a positive outlook when responding to tragic events.
I don't think that I ever implied that. It's just that at this time in history, well into the Information Age, and with the stellar advances in science, it is perplexing that people can still believe that an ancient book, written by our less developed ancestors, is the key to the creator of this unknown reality.
Whether people use their Christian beliefs for bad or good is irrelevant. The fact is that these beliefs are illogical.
And as a thinking person, you will probably never get rid of the dissonance that believing something entirely on faith causes.
I don't know about other people, but no, there is no absence of evidence for me. That is not to start the argument again about whether I have proof, I have seen what I have seen and if others can't accept it, they still have as yet to provide anything like a reasonable alternative explanation. Nevertheless, for me there is evidence.
Look, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but this is the problem I kept running into with JMcFarland too. I understand that you both have a frame of reference about this but if anything it seems to be preventing you from understanding why I believe, not facilitating your understanding. I firmly, uh, believe (if you will) that you understand a certain kind of faith. I don't have that kind of faith. I never have. At least as far as God is concerned, the only authority that ever demanded my faith is God Himself, no church or denomination or other human being of any kind., which brings me back to the last sentences of my previous paragraph.
Again, and this is not meant to belittle you at all, it is a limited understanding that prevents, rather than aids, the understanding of my situation. Believe me, my faith has been tested by a tragedy, as you are probably aware. And it has not always been a comfort to me. Nor has it been a false hope.
Believe it or not I do understand what you're saying. I did not grow up in a religious household and when I was on my own in NYC, more than a few of my friends were pretty much of the same opinion as you (though obviously not all, as I've outlined in my hub, though I didn't have more than one or two Christian friends and they didn't talk about it in my presence.) And for some people, now as in the past (yes, even the ancient past) this will always be perplexing. It's not a test of intelligence (as much as many on both sides want to make it so) for one to believe or not. The fact is that except for hardcore anti-religionists and hardcore anti-science people, there really isn't much disparity between the Bible and science. The fact is that many of the things I've learned about, from String Theory to a lot about DNA (I have a special needs child so DNA is a definite subject in my life) don't contradict at all what I read in the Bible.
Obviously I disagree with that second point but at least this clears up one part of your thinking for me.
You're right, partly. And many theologians, who are by definition thinking people, do find the dissonance and think about it. It does force a choice. But again, my faith is not predicated purely on a decision. The decision came about because of events in my life.
In my opinion, there have been a number of Atheist, right here in these forums, who have provided stellar explanations to what you say is evidence of God. In fact if you were really serious about actually finding an alternative explanation, you could just google anything on psychology, and it's connection to delusions, and religions. There are way more reasonable explanations than Goddunnit. Of course when one already has a directive to go only with wishful thinking, nothing will suffice, no matter how logical. Why is that?
So you don't detect that maybe you have closed your mind to the very real possibility that you could be wrong, and in doing so, have closed your mind to anything suggesting logical explanations? Who cares if there is evidence FOR YOU? My cousin was abducted by UFOs, and he has enough evidence to PROVE it(to himself), but he says that we just can't accept it, but we can't prove it didn't happened. He is just as adamant about it, as you are.
Let's turn that around. Because I will say that nothing says "closed mind" to me like those who automatically and unswervingly diagnose me with a mental illness with no other proof than their own belief. So have you detected that you have closed your mind to the very real possibility that I actually don't suffer from some psychological malady?
As for the "stellar explanations" that really only goes to prove my point. Only one person has made a real effort to seriously discuss an alternative to my conclusions and although I give props for her efforts it still, even if you don't come to the conclusion that it was God, comes back to an unexplained and unexplainable source, which in effect doesn't exclude God. Simply saying that I am delusional is not a "stellar explanation."
Since no one has ever shown gods exist, it would indeed exclude your god and all the other ones, too.
Do you even know what 'circular logic' means, Chris?
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."
Hence, your response is nothing more than a cheap cop out.
yes, i know what circular logic is.
I also know what the No True Scotsman fallacy is.
If you accused me of the latter when I didn't use it, thereby proving that you DON'T know what it is, then why should I even read your explanation of the former?
I have not diagnosed you with a mental illness, but it seems that you feel you have to defend your mental status. Why is that?
Then I assume that you can provide proof of your God. Not just proof to you, but objective proof. You know...the kind of proof that can be peer reviewed. My mind is still open to that. But so far all you offer is a subjective and absurd reality, then you dare us to prove you wrong. Sorry but that's completely ridiculous.
That's not at all true. The foundations of your "conclusions" have been ripped to pieces by several people on here, in different forums, you're just too rigid in your beliefs to accept that. It's like the captain of the Titanic rearranging the chairs on the deck of the ship as it is sinking. Nothing can penetrate the delusion.
I remember that forum. That turned into one of the most absurd discussions that I have ever seen of someone desperately pleading that we all bend the laws of logic so far that nothing makes sense anymore. If I need that kind of assistance from logic, then I should really take a serious look at my life. Duuude?
I want to take you seriously. Therefor, let us look at what you said:
Now, maybe, possibly, you didn't actually mean to say that I'm delusional (and maybe you didn't mean just me but all believers.) But it would be rather difficult for the average person to not draw that conclusion. This would not be the first time you have said, outright and boldfaced, that I was delusional. And from what you wrote, the 'stellar explanations' that you refer to are, in fact, the times when other atheists (when did we start capitalizing atheist?) have also called me delusional. So to imply that I am being defensive would be, at best, disingenuous.
In other words, yes you have and that is why that is.
Chris, with all due respect, I'm afraid you take the word delusional to mean you are sick or something, but that's not the way it's meant.
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument,
That being said it is typically a symptom of mental disorder, but that doesn't imply you have a mental disorder.
So you could if you like call us delusional for not seeing what is obvious to you, however this may get you laughed at.
Which really goes to my point. Even if, for the sake of argument, I agree that being called delusional is not meant as a lay diagnosis of a mental disorder, there is no possible way to construe it as neutral, let alone positive. It is meant to say (not imply but state outright) that I am an irrational person. That is not in any way possible meant to say that I am mentally sound. It can't.
Or as you point out, I could under those circumstances say that you guys are irrational and mentally unsound for "not seeing what is obvious to me," and then get laughed.
Besides, let's look at some of the other things said by "you guys" (I actually am not that comfortable doing this because there is a gamut here, and although I've been called a pretty nasty name by one person it does come from a slightly different place than the sneering lack of philosophy of ATM, or the somewhat self-righteous statements of getitrite, or your own assessment of my psyche. Oh yeah, I guess I just did.)
In any case, if the other statements made by the atheists who have been sometimes quite adamant about my delusional state are taken into account, it's difficult to not see most of these people as seeing me as having a mental illness. I'm taking context into account.
Hey Chris, did you see the names Brenda and Emile called me during the last few days. Sticks and stones my friend, sticks and stones.
I'll try to come at it from a different perspective. Imagine having a conversation with someone who insists dinosaurs still exist but only they are invisible and undetectable to those who don't believe they exist. Do you think the word delusional would come to your mind during that conversation? To be perfectly honest, to me (and I image as few others as well) there isn't much of a difference between invisible dinosaurs and an invisible undetectable God.
A) Thank you for proving my point for me.
B) I'm not really that upset by the names. I've learned to expect them here. I'm simply trying establish the parameters. If I'm going to be called a name that's one thing but then if the person who has called me that name turns around and says "But that's not what I meant" then I'm going to show where, if that were actually true, it would be very difficult for most people to understand that.
Really? What nasty name have I called you?
You can make all kinds of assertions about what you believe people think about your mental health, Chris, but if what you say so obviously contradicts reality or rational argument, they are bound to be called out for what they are. And, I know Christians have often claimed that their irrational beliefs do indeed make up our reality, but they fail to show that in any way, which does nothing more than support their delusional state.
You can complain all you want about it, but that isn't going to change the fact.
I love it when you make my point for me. You do it so often, I would think you would tire of it but you never seem to.
Also, it is interesting that you assumed I was talking about you with the nasty name comment. Little self-centered, n'est ce pas?
And here, by the way, is exhibit A of what I've been talking about:
ATM has called me delusional and I'm at a loss as to how to think it's not a lay diagnosis of mental deficiency, if not illness.
"Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument."
As you can see, Chris, the definition of delusion involves contradiction of belief by reality or rational argument. Often, it is reality, let alone rational argument, that contradicts many Christian beliefs, hence they are delusions.
Well, focusing on the tree in order to claim you don't see the forest IS a specialty of yours...
Yet, another delusion. I can see trees and I can see forests, but we can't see your God, Chris, which is what it all boils down to, the delusion you keep presenting that contradicts reality.
Just by mentioning the word "Psychology" I am not accusing you of having a mental illness. I was only suggesting that your beliefs can be explained much better using the findings of Psychology rather than wishful thinking that your experiences are "unexplainable"
There are rational explanations for what you claim is evidence of the proof of God. There are no imaginary Gods to be found in reality, therefore that is not one of the rational explanations. Hence, all explanations presented to you are more probable than yours. You just don't won't to accept them.
I think I just sufficiently explained that I never said you were mentally ill. However, you have been brainwashed into believing that a whimsical nonsensical belief explains this vast reality....a reality that cannot even be fathomed by the greatest of thinkers, let alone an ancient book of contradictions, ignorance and barbaric violence.
I will try to deal more with your statement later but there is one thing on which we absolutely agree: There are no imaginary Gods to be found in reality.
In other words your powerful delusion does not allow you to accept the REAL definition of the word "imaginary"
OR: your unbending arrogance won't allow you to admit that there might be any other way of looking at anything other than the very narrow one you shove down my throat. Which either makes you a bit hypocritical since you basically accuse me of the same thing or a great walking case of irony since you, well, basically accuse me of the same thing.
Gee this is fun but could we get back to an actual conversation? It was at this point that I told ATM I wanted to talk to grownups. I still want to.
Just because I refuse to look at things in the illogical way you would prefer, does not mean that my view is narrow, and of course, it is not arrogant. It's just that your beliefs are absurd.
Chris it seems that somehow you can twist everything into the same nonsensical conclusion....that ultimately everyone is doing exactly what they accuse you of doing. In other words the equivalent of the very childish "I know you are, but what am I" THIS IS A DESPERATE COP-OUT.
So whenever you decide that you want to stop using the childish "I know you are, but what am I" position, we can proceed as adults. But, of course, you would prefer that the "grownups" you converse with, have a belief in CHILDISH, WHIMSICAL IMAGINARY super heroes. Should these "grownups" believe that there are monsters under the bed as well? How utterly absurd.
I'm sorry, I told myself I would not do this again but I just had to laugh when I got to that "COP OUT" part and the "I know you are but what am I" really had me rolling.
Back when this seemed like the promise of an actual conversation, I advised that if you could exercise a little charity and good will you might actually get somewhere in understanding other people, not just me. I stand by that. This is not to be judgmental or accusatory, but if you insist on insulting me you won't get anywhere. If, as ATM seems to, you enjoy a good back-and-forth free from actual intellectual input then I leave you to it and wish you well. But if you are actually trying to understand something, no matter how hard it may be, then I'm all in. And again, that is not to be judgmental. It is very human that when we come up against something we don't understand we tend to explain it away. But it's rarely productive.
And to understand something is not necessarily to agree with it. I try hard to understand the lure of Nazism because I'm a history buff and because that particular chapter of history is so important, but I don't agree with it. Nevertheless, as Atticus said to Scout, walk a mile in someone else's shoes and try to figure out what makes them tick without coming down on them.
It all comes down to your inability to accept that your position is completely ridiculous.
Your position is comparable to someone, blindly, continuing to play a Chess game after his King has been captured and killed....as if, at that point, you can just make up your own rules and proceed to move Chess pieces around as if there is something more to gain. Heck, with your logic, you don't even have to have any pieces left to move....you will still continue to play....and will brutally attack the intellect and maturity of your opponent who tries, in vain, to point this out to you....while not recognizing the special treatment, that you require, is so absurd that it renders everything POINTLESS! ---not worth pursuing.
Check-mate....You lose....Show some sportsmanship. That would be the adult thing to do. Of course some people are way too narcissistic to even be aware that this is the way things are.
Since I have pointed this out to you, I hope you at least give it some thought, as I am not going down this road again either. So there you have it.........Check mate!
Accept it, and.....
Have a nice day.
And yet, YOU are the one caught in another lie. Is that what you consider "intellectual input"? Making false claims about what other people say? Dreadful behavior. How very un-Christ like.
I don't know if you're talking about me here or not, but I did not diagnose you with a mental illness, nor did I say you were delusional. We barely got our foot in the door of discussion before the thread took a wrong turn and you bowed out for personal and emotional issues, which I understood.
I don't think it's fair to assert that I had predictive ideas of what you would say when we barely got started on the topic. I'm not interested in shrinking you and I'm relatively sure that you're not too interested in finding (or admitting to) any explanation of these events apart from the one you've already decided upon, but I am interested in having the conversation and broadening my understanding about you and your beliefs.
I apologize for painting with too broad a brush. I have actually thought a lot about some of the things you have said and how they may or may not apply to my case. I've been sorry that we didn't continue our discussion at a later time. But again, I apologize for sweeping you up into my examples. You're right, and I'm sorry.
Thank you for this, Chris. Email me any time. I think we've demonstrably proven that this discussion is impossible in a forum setting like the one here at hp
Would atheists accept that they were in heaven?
If Atheists were allowed in Heaven, then I, as a believer, would be upset that I spent my whole life worshiping God, when I didn't really have to. I could have saved valuable time on Sundays, and could have actually not been afraid to use my critical thinking skills. Alas, it goes for naught, as the Godless heathens will be able to enjoy eternity with me.
Tails - Atheist wins
Reminds me of the older brother in the parable of the prodigal son
There is a biblical story concerning that way of thought.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=NIV
I guess you are comparing Atheists to the workers who came later....but that is a misrepresentation. Atheists would be the workers demolishing the rotten crops that this farmer has planted. They will do no work to help him with his harvest. No, quite the contrary. So why would he pay them ANYTHING?
Reminds me of the hilarity that ensues when you tell Christians that Adolf Hitler was good little Catholic. "That's impossible!" they'll shriek, "He did evil things! He was no true Christian!" they continue on, invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy, and conveniently forgetting that Christians spent the entirety of the Dark Ages raping and torturing and burning and killing anything that moved.
The point of that story, of course, is that the workers were working for God. Some just did more than others. getitwrong's point is that atheists for some reason are the only people who actually use their brains.
I'm quite sure that most Theists actually use their brain, and some can even function on a high level, but when it comes to religion, that part of the brain is shut out, due to a false directive, that has been injected(in this case...by popularity)and erroneously accepted as fact. Having unquestioning faith that fairy tales are reality is certainly not using ones critical thinking skills. In fact it is VERY dangerous.
Again, the broadness of your application and your faith in your conclusion aren't necessarily signs of correctness. It's easy (all too easy) to decide that something you don't understand has some kind of sinister underpinnings, but even if you were right (and you're not) about believers shutting down a part of their brain, that very line of thought can lead to something far more dangerous than the one you've perceived.
I'd be surprised at a heaven that doesn't include everyone God made and loves, regardless of how they expressed their understanding of him while on earth.
Such wisdom, Mo, as always. Your words and concepts shine and are so inspiring and reflect the true meaning of Jesus and his teachings so well, in my opinion. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I wish more Christians were like you.
Thank you, Mystic. Most of what I believe about God has been turned over, turned around, flipped upside down and sideways, and examined under a microscope. At the end of the day, no matter what the preachers, teachers, and evangelists have to tell me, I really have to either understand him for myself based on my experiences or live a life contrary to logic (which, to be fair, a life with God can easily be, since his ways are so vastly different from ours). If after study of scripture and time spent in prayer, I'm able to experience true peace about a particular subject, I take that as his sign that I'm at least in the right ballpark.
I haven't read the entire thread, so I may repeat someone else's comment.
What you describe here is Earth, here & now.
Transferring our current state of being to Eternity, and then calling it Heaven, is pointless.
How can it be a place, different to the "here & now"?
I don't consider it pointless, or impossible to imagine all life in harmony. One thing would have to be removed from our collective psyche. Judgment. If we stopped comparing, cataloging, categorizing and doing it all to judge our individual worth and happiness; if you could view the world through the eyes of others and they through yours while giving no individual a higher value than the next hunger, disease, war and everything else that inhibits contentment could easily fall to the wayside.
Haven't read all the replies; don't need to.
It wouldn't be heaven if unbelievers were there.
Christ is Christ.
His followers are what?-----eh-----Christians.
He is the only Way to heaven.
He wants everyone to become Believers so that they CAN go to heaven.
Once they become Believers, they would no longer BE Islamists, witches, Buddhists, or any "faith" outside of Christianity.
So your question is ....twisted, to say the least.
There are some unbelievers who are more Christ like than Christians. It seems to me you comment is indicative of such.
That's an unproven and false statement.
Nope, unbelievers aren't more Christ-like than Christians, for the simple reason that Christians (born-again, blood-bought, sinners-saved-by-grace Christians) have the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of God/Christ) within them.
Now, I admit there are some Christians who are personally haughty, arrogant, unkind, etc.
But a Christian who simply states the facts of the Bible and the Word of God in the flesh (as Jesus was) , as I just did, is in no way "unChristlike". It is the word of God. If you want to try to make it mean something else just so you can point out your personal dislike of me or your dislike of born-again Christians in general (whichever your comments are indicative of), then that's your problem.
Really, do you think Jesus would have been in favour of universal heath care? Do you think he would have asked the rich to help pay for the poor. Reading scripture it's clear he would have asked the rich to sell their belonging and help the poor. I know a fair amount of born agains and it seems to me they are not in favour of universal heath care. Why is that?
And for the record, I don't know you so have no opinion of you. No dislike here. I'm sure you are a wonderful person, one that I just don't agree with.
Then please stop hinting that I'm unChristlike.
As for Christ's teachings.........
I'm pretty sure He meant that those who can do so should sell all their belongings and give to the poor; in other words, ones who were willing to literally follow Him as He walked on earth. That's what the disciples did---------they gave up their daily lives and literally went on His journeys with Him! One of them (Peter) was, according to indications in the Bible, even married. Yet it doesn't say whether Peter had kids or other personal obligations. Jesus didn't mean for anyone to literally desert their families if they were needed at home. His words were a test of intent mainly, as in who was willing to really devote their lives to His cause? Whose heart was in spreading the word? Who had the ability and the desire to follow Him?
As far as the disciples too........there was a time when they lived all in accord and shared their finances and meals and property, yes. But that was a group of Believers. Not a mixed group of unbelievers and believers. Not a "universal" group as in anybody and everybody got invited to share in that group, because it was only for His followers. And indeed they had to take the judgement along with the privilege. Matter of fact, God struck a couple of them dead because they didn't follow His rules.
As far as "universal health care"........I dunno about all Christians, but this Christian is opposed to universal health care for several reasons, one of which is that it's unConstitutional. It is a forced thing, a thing forced upon citizens. There were already enough charities and volunteer groups and doctors and even big hospitals who helped the poor when they were sick and penniless. Those were charitable, willingly charitable groups, and I thank God for them! Obama acts like the willingness to help one's fellow man has to be legislated and forced upon everyone. It does not.
Also his intent is critical to the message that he wants to perpetuate----supposedly "wealth sharing" and "helping our neighbors" was created in his mind for a good purpose, but it was not. His motivation is political and personal and selfish. He used the liberal desire to legalize homosexuality as one of his tools to further his fame and image as the champion of "civil rights". Which of course has added thousands if not millions of people to the burden that our health care system already faced. Case in point------supposed "significant others" (mostly homosexuals, and specifically homosexuals even, according to the laws he proposed).....are now covered under homosexual soldiers' health insurance plans, chalking up votes for the great Obama of course! And that of course has filtered to most insurance companies. The insurance company I myself have under my husband's employment has sent out statements clearly vowing that they now cover the "partners" of homosexuals (who by very definition engage in unsanitary and unwholesome and medically-risky acts), while at the same time trying to criminalize cigarette smoking.
Also, if you'd read up on this as it's been in the News "forever" now............Obama's intent is to cover illegal aliens. Now, while I understand the plight of illegals if they're really just wanting a better life, the truth is that they would've already gotten emergency help if they went to any hospital or clinic. And the truth is that they're illegal, period.
So, his agenda adds a huge huge population, an undue burden, to our already-full health care system in this Country. His motive?-----------not to help all Americans. His motive is simply to get as many votes as he can and promote his name, his image, as high as he can promote it, while of course making lifelong Americans pay for it all. Why? Because he's narcissistic. He's a man who would-be-Martin-Luther-King-or-Abe-Lincoln-type if he could, but he can't do so legitimately because he's way behind the times! Those men already were great civil rights leaders! He had to have a fake "cause" to cover his agenda. He is no Martin Luther King! He is no Abe Lincoln! What he is is an egotistical tyrant who has somehow succeeded in forcing a FINE (called a tax) upon the American people that they didn't volunteer for nor that they should be liable for.
If there were a legitimate need for universal healthcare in this Country, I wouldn't be against it. And if there were to be, and if there is, I would back it IF the intent of it were legitimate. The motivation and implementation of any law is critical. Obama, with his so-called "brilliant" mind, could have come up with a plan to reform our existing health care laws, cut down on fraud, etc., and really help the entire situation if he wanted to. But he didn't want to. What he wanted is what I said---------he wants fame and power; he wants to be seen as a great civil rights leader. He refuses to give in to the truth that our civil rights have already been equalized by men such as MLK and Lincoln and etc. He isn't a man looking for his place in society! He's a man who seeks to usurp the place of others in society. Because he himself has no real moral goals, no legitimate agenda, no great moral principle to fight for. It's all already been done by others way before him. His intent is to force universal health care upon everyone; that's what "Obamacare" is already doing------ruining our existing health care system and thereby forcing everyone onto the path of universal health care eventually. Actually, "Obamacare" is a basis, a form, of universal health care already.
He is lost. And he will take anyone with him who is willing to follow him. And has succeeded to a big degree. Many people overlook the unconstitutionality of his "Obamacare" simply because he so boldly touts it as legit, and somehow even got the Supreme Court to back him. Such is the state of this Nation now----a tyrant President and a corrupt Supreme Court.
God help America. Hopefully, through the people of this Nation who are finally (I hope) starting to balk at being tyrannized by a man who shows no moral strength and no shame for anything he does or says.
I'm no longer hinting, I'm stating.
I love that, "I'm pretty sure He MEANT..." Here is what he said (according to the bible)
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
So unless you are selling your stuff and giving it to the poor you're not listening to Christ.
Surprise! Another supposed Christian opposed to helping his neighbour obtain health care. Not only is that not Christ like, it's pathetic as I am in favour and am willing to pay my fair share so all get equal health care treatment. Crap, I'm more Christ like than you.
Well, since you are Canadian, offering to pay your share is pointless. Just so you know, Jesus never expressed a political opinion so considering yourself Christlike is a heck of a leap whose only purpose appears to be a 'Look at me! Look at me!' moment.
I didn't express a political opinion. Read it again. I showed what the bible says Christ said about helping others. Me being Canadian has nothing to do with this discussion. It's just something you keep bringing up. I simply posted as to what it is to be Christ like.
Well, it's all a matter of opinion, I suppose. Imo, if Christ was like what you attempt to paint him to be he wouldn't be very memorable. Running around, making accusations. Attempting to insult in hopes of making himself look better didn't seem his cup of tea.
I keep bringing up the fact that you are Canadian because I'm wondering why you don't mind your own business? Not only did Christ not discuss politics in the Roman empire, he also didn't whine about what people of other nations and their governments were doing. So how, exactly, are you Christlike?
Did Jesus mind his own business? Does the God of the bible mind his own business? You kill me.
Ahhh, they put him on the cross for it and once again I'm not taking politics.
Well, to be fair, for the most part he did. The stories about him tend to be about him talking to his followers and people approaching him with questions or requests.
Now God, on the other hand, is a petty, shallow busybody who, unfortunately for the denizens of the myths of the Bible, also happens to wield infinite power and gets pissed off super-easy.
So I shouldn't have any Christians knocking on my door or telling me how to get into heaven? Notice I get told to mind my own business? The so called Christians who don't want to help the less fortunate tell me to mind my own business.
That's OT vs NT stuff.
I suppose you are right about Jesus. The stories about him healing the sick really do point out his busy body nature. Well, not healing the religious, but how dare he heal the servant of a Roman soldier when asked to do so? Or, the daughter of the gentile woman? The nerve!
That was sarcasm, in case you didn't know. You are, at the moment, showcasing why atheism is perceived by some as the flip side of theism. Same attitude, same shtick with a few words changed. Jesus did all he could to make people think and they still refuse to do it. Oh, well.
Not in the sense you are implying. He was the victim of Jewish politics, not Roman politics. Compare it to if a JW petitioned the state government to murder a Baptist for claiming to be one of the 144,000. And the state did it to keep the JW from rioting in the streets.
And, you are talking politics. This is a continuation of your theme that the American government has to force Christians to take care of their neighbors. I'm not defending Christianity here rad man. I'm defending the separation of church and state. Your accusations are beyond ludicrous. You'd whine at any attempt by them to sway government policy on issues you don't agree with them on, yet you call them unchristian for not supporting government policy you do agree with. It's like watching a Puritan chastise a Quaker. No one should use religion as their excuse for decisions that affect the whole of a nation such as ours. The fact that you don't live here should make it clear you aren't in a position to know what is best for our citizens. If we were constantly needling you to support some Canadian legislation you didn't agree with you'd be appalled. Are you so obtuse that you can't see how much of a busy body this line of attack you have embarked on makes you appear to be?
Sadly, I think you actually think so.
Subtlety. Twisting of Scripture, twisting of intent, avoidance of context and full content. Such an easy temptation to fall into, isn't it? For an unbeliever anyway.
Sorry, no empathy from me for someone who outright says they're personally accusing me.
Don't talk to me again if you're gonna keep doing that. I respect decent, fair, and thoughtful conversation. I don't respect the actions of anyone who resorts to personal attacks. If you can't do better than you've done, go whisper your false accusations to yourself as you sit in the dark pit of confusion you're making for yourself.
"Surprise! Another supposed Christian opposed to helping his neighbour obtain health care. Not only is that not Christ like, it's pathetic as I am in favour and am willing to pay my fair share so all get equal health care treatment. Crap, I'm more Christ like than you."
I'll have to take Brenda's side on this one as I do not recall Jesus every robbing, or forcibly taking from one person to help another. He absolutely suggested that we should help, but never, ever said we should force anyone to help anyone else.
So while it 's wonderful you are willing to do your share (but presumably a "share" designated by you and not more than that) but it is not so wonderful that you find it reasonable to force others to provide the support you think is reasonable. The last is admittedly an assumption, but if you're berating Brenda for not liking Obamacare (forcibly requiring people to provide healthcare for others) then it seems a reasonable assumption to make.
Jesus is said to have said one must sell his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor to assure one gets into heaven. So, while he didn't force the person to help his fellow man he did teach that to be Christ like one must help others. I maintain that if she doesn't want to help the less fortunate she isn't behaving in a Christ-like manner.
It's most unfortunate that the Slave ethics of the NT doesn't appear to work in practice.
I'm not berating anyone, Brenda spends her time telling others they are not Christians if they think this or that. I think that her behaviour is un Christ like and if she wants to continue making second class citizens of anyone who isn't just like her and I'll continue to attempt to show her how un Christian her behaviour is and I'll continue to back it up with scripture.
1) selling your goods to help the poor
2) forcing others to "give" to the poor by confiscating their possessions.
There is NO connection between 1) and 2). There are not the same, they do not refer to the same action or even similar ones. One is theft, one is charity. Brenda's behavior in disliking Obamacare (#2) has zero to do with her actions concerning #1. This is an extremely common fallacy of the liberal, socialist, left - you either give as I say or I will force you to do so because it is moral. But it is NOT moral and saying it is 1,000 times will not make it so.
See, to a Christ-like person it's not forcing one to give up their stuff to help others. A government takes taxes and distributes services for the good of the people. It's understood these taxes are necessary to educate the young, but not for the health of it's people? Do people complain about the taxes that go into the education system?
Government services should have nothing to do with Religion in a secular society and yet we have people who claim to be Christ-like complaining about helping others. That's unChrist-like plain and simple.
Sorry, but caring for your fellow humans is moral and ethical. The stories of what Christ did amplifies that. Healing the poor is what he did, if one feels the government is unethical for attempting to do the same they shouldn't call themselves Christian.
I know I've beaten this one to death but...
You're still kind of missing the point.
What Jesus said was that if we wish to be perfect, we must voluntarily give up our possessions and give to the poor. If the government wishes to do that in our place, whether or not we have consented to it, it may be humanitarian but it isn't Christian. For an individual to complain about the government forcing them to do something involuntarily, even if that person would have done the exact same thing in the exact same amount on their own, is not unChristian. A person who voluntarily gives to a government fund to help the poor (even if they are looking at it as paying their fair share of taxes and do it to the glory of God) is being Christian. Someone who has part of their paycheck withheld by the government to pay for birth control when they don't believe it's Biblical and that person complains about it, they are not being unChristian.
Sure they are, and if they aren't telling others to help their fellow man they are un Christ-like.
That's apples and oranges. Someone saying the government has no right to take the money they would have devoted to God and putting it to unGodly use is not the same thing at all as someone saying that nobody should help other people.
It's funny, we all seem to understand that the governments take our taxes for educating the young for the good of the whole, but when it comes to healing the poor Christians don't feel obligated? It's not apples and oranges. It's Christians putting money in hat to help out his fellow man. It's the right thing to do and you know it. It's Christ like and you know it. Saying that Christ twisted anyone's arm to help the poor is the spin the wealthy do to keep their money guilt free.
Have you not heard of World Vision, Compassion International, Food for the Hungry, or Samaritans Purse? And those are just the well known ones.
Either you and I are not discussing quite the same thing or your definition of "Christ-like" and mine are not quite synced.
Let me be very clear, if the government takes my taxes in order to kill babies, it is not un-Christ-like to think that's wrong.
I'm also not in favor of the government paying for Viagra.
I do think that governments taking care of people is humanitarian. And I don't doubt that most of the people involved are doing the best they can with what they know and believe. But it is not a Christian act of charity to be taxed by the government, it simply isn't. IF, which this won't happen, but IF the government were to suddenly declare itself a Christian theological organization and it were made clear to people that the taxes used to support health care are in fact a Christian act of charity, then that would be different. But our government (and yours as well) are specifically supposed to be neutral (as far as possible) and the act of doing anything is supposed to be divorced not just from one specific theology but from all theology, because otherwise there are people who become belligerent. Not many, but sometimes they hire lawyers, or are lawyers themselves, and it gets really, really messy.
Now, to try to address more specifically what I think you're saying, I never said that Christ twisted anybody's arm. And in my hub I did point out that Jesus did not go to either the Roman or the Jewish governments and say they needed to take care of people. The fact is that if someone dutifully pays their taxes, knowing that the money will go for 'healing' but still resents other things (remember that the rich young ruler Jesus was talking to had apparently kept all the Commandments since he was a boy and this was the last thing he needed to do to be 'perfect') then they still are a long way off.
All or both are possible
Is your government using your tax money to kill babies? I'm talking about proper health care and your talking about killing babies.
Does that happen?
Ahhh, Doesn't it say in the bible that Jesus told his followers to pay their taxes? He didn't like the tax man ripping them off, but he did tell them to pay their taxes.
Wow, I mean wow.It it would be okay if a government declares themselves a Christian organization and takes your money to do a Christian thing, but it's not okay for a secular government to do a Christian thing with your money?
We are not talking about other things you may not want to pay for here, we are talking about Christians not wanting to help the less fortunate. Which is un-Christ-like.
I try to stay apolitical in these, I think we all pretty well know each others basic political stances. But I stepped into it this time. So I'm waiting for the last to answer a specific point.
Yes, our government does pay for some men (I think certain Medicare patients) to be able to take Viagra. I think it's incredibly stupid but it is apparently legal.
Yes, Jesus did say that we should pay our taxes. So yes, paying our taxes is a Christian duty. But that does not mean we are required to agree with what we are paying taxes for. And the 1st Century Israelites did not live in a democracy/representative republic where they had a strong voice in the political process, modern Americans (and others) do. So if we disagree with something, we have a voice to say so.
BTW, if you want to split hairs, the tax that Jesus specifically said to pay was the Temple Tax. Should we then institute a tax for maintaining religious structures in order to be sure we are following Jesus?
Think about what you just said. Can a truly secular government do a truly Christian thing? Or truly Muslim or truly Wiccan? Jesus' commands were to individuals, not governments. We must all work out our own salvation, the government cannot do it for us. You keep arguing that a government CAN keep a commandment FOR us, but it cannot.
Okay, there's a part where we agree, and we don't. We definitely agree that not wanting to help the less fortunate is un-Christ-like. I don't think there's any question about that. But the form that help takes is inextricably linked to this conversation, whether you or I like it or not. People who feel that God is calling them to help out in Darfur, or Syria, or Outer Mongolia, or Appalachia or Quebec, but instead their money is being taken to help people who are middle class (and this happens a lot more often than is generally thought) or even rich are not wrong to feel that the government is not behaving in a Christian manner. And you have argued, in effect, that the government is behaving in a Christian manner (maybe not in this post but in others.) To assume that someone who doesn't want to pay taxes to support the abortion industry therefor does not want to help the less fortunate is exactly that, an assumption. Of course, for some people it may well be true, and for some it is. But not for all.
And yes, long before the Affordable Care Act, and even somewhat separately from it, Medicare money (which is after all money that was taxed from people) went to support Planned Parenthood. I try not to get too political in these forums (and this is not really a political debate, I'm not trying to say that ACA is bad or shouldn't be happening, just that it is not in and of itself a Christian necessity) but I did that time. I'm sure there will be blowback from that, which is not really what I want, but I didn't want to ignore a question.
I know, it would have been so much easier if I simply agreed with your premise, that Christians who 'don't want to help the less fortunate are being un-Christ-like.' And I do. But it stopped being simple as soon as a person's Christ-likeness was linked to their support for the Affordable Care Act. Nothing, but nothing, about that process has been simple.
Chris, you keep bring up other issues when we are talking about as you said "affordable care" Making sure your neighbours have affordable health care is in fact caring for them. Complaining about it is un-christ-like. You and others can complain about abortion if you like, because that complaint might make you more christ-like. The simple fact is, complaining that the government is making you care for your neighbours is un Christ-like.
Sure a secular government can do a Christ-like thing. Compassion is Christ-like and governments can show compassion. We can't say a secular government can't show compassion.
I never said a secular government can't show compassion. Of course it can.
We can keep going around on this but I will say that there is more than one meaning for "care" in that sentence. And I know you're specifically talking about Christians, not non-Christians who complain about being taxed.
And you're still missing my main point.
So essentially, you and every other Christian have no intention whatsoever of following that ideal from Jesus. And, why is that, pray tell?
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where ATM officially gives up on actual conversation and interaction and just declares open warfare.
Call me when you grow up.
*shrug* The takers, the ones forcing their version of "charity", can always rationalize that their thieving actions are moral. That's easy - all they have to do is make the claim and suddenly it's all right to take what others have. The receivers, too, have an easy time rationalizing it - it is something they are owed, that they are entitled to. Because they are alive.
The thief known as "Robin Hood" was a great man, was he not?
Of course, the ones being taken from seldom agree. When forced at gunpoint or jail time to give charitable contributions they are not so sanguine about it being the moral thing to do. They find the force being used against them to be quite immoral, in fact. And they're right, too.
"blinks" Are you saying taxes are a form of theft? We do get something in return for our taxes, education, roads, infrastructure.
We do. Plus we get to fatten the pocket books of corporations that contribute to elections, we get to provide food for those too lazy to work and we get to provide luxuries to people that can't or won't afford them.
And, once in a while, comparatively rarely, we get to help someone that needs it.
IMHO, a very high percentage of government spending should not be there; it does not help the country (or actually harms it) and is thus not the prerogative of government. As taxes are required to do these things, it constitutes theft.
There is no hinting, your words in this post show you to be very much unChristlike.,,
Truth is exclusive, if it is truth. Are you asking the right question?
I know I responded earlier but...I've had second thoughts and need some clarification. Would the really bothersome atheists still be bothersome? If so, I don't see the upside of heaven.
Thank you EmileR, your answer was the only one that was on topic.
If the atheist does not wish to believe in God, then God will respect his wishes and won't bother said atheist with His presence afterwards, anyway.
Is this statement true or not.
I have no idea.
But, I hope not.
I find it interesting that God does not force Himself on people but that Christians feel the need to do it. Jesus did not say that just because someone is not a believer in Him on this earth that they will go to hell. He preached to those who wanted to hear.
Claire, that's beautifully said, and incredibly important. None of us knows the hearts and minds of others, no matter what we THINK we may know. God does, and I have no doubt that many of us will be shocked to see who we're sharing heaven with someday.
Thanks. It is just too easy to say that all non believers don't have a chance of going to heaven because they died one. There are many circumstances that make on a non believer. For example, they were brought up one or have been disillusioned with Christianity because of a traumatic experience. We just don't know and it is not for us to judge. Even in the Bible Jesus will say to some Christians that He never knew them.
Agreed. Btw, your new profile pic is lovely.
LOL. Thinking and using ones brain does not a traumatic experience make.
Maybe some atheists just have the courage and intellectual honesty to see that all religions are stupid, and that there is no REAL desire for going to Heaven....the only motivation being a fear of permanent death, or fear of the other fictitious place....Hell.
I think that intellectual honesty from an atheist is acknowledging it is impossible to negate God's existence. An atheist can never be sure. Someone should not be a Christian because they want to go to heaven. It should be because they love Jesus. If one is a Christian because they fear hell then they do not know Him.
So, on the flipside, it is intellectual dishonesty for any theist to state Jesus, heaven or hell exists?
For me to have intellectual dishonesty, I would have to know what I am espousing is for a fact not true. Since I know it is not false that Jesus, heaven and hell exists. You, however, cannot state for a fact Jesus is not he son of God.
You supply the evidence for your own dishonesty. "Since I know it is not false that Jesus, heaven and hell exists." is dishonest as you cannot know anything of the kind. You have not shook the hand of Jesus, and neither have you visited heaven or hell. You have spoken to no one who has, and have not even read the report of anyone writing of their experience in these things. Only the words of politicians at Nicaea, compiling a politics based tome of modified 3rd, 4th or 5th hand reports designed solely to control other people's actions.
Dishonest is a mild term to use when you present opinion and imagination as absolute fact by saying such things as "I know it is not false..." but have no knowledge whatsoever.
Yes, that is indeed intellectual dishonesty.
There is no evidence of that, none whatsoever. There is no evidence Jesus or your God even exists. It would intellectually dishonest for you to say so.
You mean, there is no scientific evidence that Jesus is the son of God. There is other evidence. You just don't know how to interpret it.
The only evidence for Christ is in the Bible, Claire.
That again is intellectual dishonesty, Claire.
How do you know I am being intellectually dishonest? Who's to say you can't interpret evidence of the existence of the Holy Spirit?
We've reached a stale mate here. It is impossible for you to understand what I am talking about. We are comparing apples with oranges.
Evidence - real evidence - available to anyone, very rarely needs "interpreting". It NEVER needs twisted into something it's not, and it NEVER needs exaggeration into more than it is. It NEVER depends on ignorance and it is ALWAYS available to all.
None of that is true of your "evidence" of the Holy Spirit, so no, you cannot "interpret" your "evidence".
You are talking about evidence that is from earth. Evidence from the spiritual realm is very different. The evidence is available to all if one truly seeks it.
That is pure nonsense, a "spiritual realm" has never been shown to exist, let alone finding some evidence there to support your irrational beliefs.
It really doesn't concern me if you think I am delusional.
I Clair, I can only agree with you about Christ and heaven existing, but as for hell, it was created by the early church to maintain control and gain wealth by using the powerful tool of fear. You will not find the word hell in scriptures original Hebrew or Greek.
So Satan does not dwell in hell? Jesus very much was in contact with him and his demons. You also need to know exactly what hell is. It is the complete separation from God. It is not full of fire. There is no point to Jesus without hell because the penalty of sin is hell, which is the complete separation from God, which Jesus suffered on our behalf.
I rarely read your posts anymore, Claire. But, I'm glad I read that. It's a good thought. Minus the belief in demons or a literal Satan.
No satan does not dwell in hell because satan is our Adamic carnal nature. The belief of an evil entity ruling hell comes from pagan origins, such as the Germanic pagan underworld ruled by the pagan goddess Hel.
Then you can't believe Jesus the way He is portrayed. There is no point to Christianity if Jesus did not defeat the source of all evil, Satan. Unfortunately, Satan very much exists and it is horrific.
Clair, has it occurred to you that most of what you have been taught about Christ, hell and satan is not the truth?
If we take 'Satan' from the Arabic 'Shaitan' (which we do), then yes. It does exist. Because it literally just means "opponent."
Oh, and it's a word taken from Islam. You've been using an Islamic term all your life. I bet you feel dirty now for using a dirty heathen ungodly Muslim word, and that amuses me.
Muslims are just ppl. Ppl have languages. All words come derive from somewhere so why would you say something like this?
If a Muslim child were hungry would you feed him? I would.
If a Muslim woman were being beaten would you save her? God help me, I would.
If a Muslim man needed water, would you give it? Why wouldn't you? I would.
Muslims come from Ishmael, the son of Abraham and Hagar. When she was pregnant with Ishmael, she was an outcast, and she ran away, alone and an angel of the Lord came to her and spoke to her about what would happen in the future and she was blessed b/c she knew the Lord saw her... He knew her, He cared.
You're preaching to the choir. It's Claire (as well as the vast majority of Christians, especially in America) who needs to be reminded that Muslims are people, too.
Huh? Why would I think that Muslims aren't people too? Let me remind you that I speak out against Islamic extremists. I think atheists need to be reminded that Christians are people, too.
Then, why are Christians unable to use their brains like people?
You aren't a good ambassador for atheists. All you feel the need to do is insult Christians. You think Christian scientists can't use their brains?
Oh yes, I remember that story, she was a slave who was raped by Abraham and became pregnant. When she tried run away God stopped and told her to go back and be a good slave.
Slave ethics. Nice.
Slavery is sacred, because it is sanctioned by all mighty God.
Thank you, Jesus...
God saw her in her time of great need. A woman who had little to no value in their society... yet God had compassion on her, saw her mistreatment and spoke words of hope into her future.
Was she better off returning to her home? I don't know... she was in the wilderness when God's angel spoke to her. Maybe God knows things you don't.
Maybe he does know things, things like women are substandard examples of "mankind", suitable only for slavery.
God could have given her a home, manna each day and some protection from the slavers; instead He told her to get back to the slave pen and behave. She did indeed have great need, just as you say, but God did not provide for her. Just sent her back to her owner.
The Bible is a book to be studied. This is a wonderful commentary on it. I hope you'll have the time.
http://www.westmont.edu/~fisk/articles/ … s%2016.pdf
Truthfully, the biggest reason I can see to "study" the bible is to find ways to twist and spin what it says into something more palatable. This seems to allow the reader to still believe in the nonsense there.
As a simple example, take your link. Second page, the writer says, referring to Hagar, that "The other was a lowly servant girl from Egypt". A couple of sentences later we see that "Hagar was a maid servant from Egypt."
Neither of these statements (and there are many others) have any basis in truth. Both attempt to slyly insinuate that Hagar was something other than what verse one plainly says she was: "an Egyptian slave girl". That Abram "went in" to his "slave girl" and impregnated her is unacceptable today; the obvious solution is to pretend that Hagar was something else, something that would be acceptable under today's improved moral structure. But Hagar wasn't a servant, free to lead her own life; she was a slave, given by Sarai to be Abrams new wife. Without, notice, any agreement from the slave - one doesn't need agreement to "give" a slave. Of course, one doesn't "marry" a slave, either, and particularly one doesn't marry a slave and then tell their other wife to "do to her as you please" because she's still "your slave girl".
If that's how you want to read about God - to "clean up" His actions and those of His chosen prophets into something more palatable - then have at it. I'm not particularly interested in a make believe personality with make believe traits. If I'm to worship a god it will be as that god is, not some sanitized version made palatable, and the God of the OT (same one as the NT) has an absolutely abominable record in the human rights area. It is not the moral/ethical creature portrayed by spinning the bible for all we're worth, and it is not something worthy of my worship.
Are you serious? It's plain to see that is something you have never done because it requires thinking and critique, not gullible acceptance.
You mean being raped and getting pregnant by her owner.
Remember the recent case where some moron keep 2 or 3 girls as his sex slaves for something like 10 years. Do you think they would be better off still there?
Look, this is slave owner ethics, the slave is of no value to the owner so this is a book telling sex slaves to remain with the owner that you are defending and calling it a beautiful story.
But, it's evidently obvious we know things that you don't.
The word Satan very much exists in the Old Testament which is, of course, much older than Islam.
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. (Job 1:6 RSV)"
Clair, no you don't, or at least all of it. There is a reason why I asked the question about heaven and athiests.
No one knows a person that may or may not have lived 2000 years ago. You are in love with a fictitious character. It's like someone claiming to be in love with a movie or rock star. Find a real person to love.
That has nothing to do with the fact that your religion is stupid. Saying that it makes sense is intellectual dishonesty.
So are you sure that a God eating Dragon doesn't exist? If you can't prove that a God eating Dragon doesn't exist, how can you be sure that he hasn't eaten your God? Seems like YOU can never be sure.
Yeah right, but given the other choices, they don't have much of a choice. No matter what you have tricked yourself into believing, take away the allure of everlasting life, or the threat of Hell, and you have no desire to even believe any of this nonsense.
Yet, again, if you take away the allure of ever lasting life, and the threat of Hell, loving Jesus goes right out the window. And you could actually see how ridiculous it is that you have spent your life pretending to love a mere human, who has been long dead.
But the only reason that you pretend not to fear Hell is because you feel that Jesus is going to save you from it. Hence you fear Hell. That's why Christians force themselves to fall in love with a fictitious character in a book, based on the life of someone who was just a mere human.
I think it ludicrousness to automatically assume the subject matter of a biography to be nonexistent simply because I do not believe everything written about that person.
I could write a story about Javier Sotomayor jumping tall buildings ... .. and just because we do not believe this ... this does not mean that he never existed, or that he does not hold the world record for the high jump.
However, I can not prove he can jump at all. I've never seen him jump. I can only choose to believe what I have read OR NOT!
????? Of course, this is still desperately stretching logic to a breaking point, only to suit your indoctrination. Otherwise it's absurd.
What you seem to not understand is that I am not defending any particular theology in that statement..
BASIC reason and logic does not conclude that a person does not exist just because "I" choose to stretch the truth concerning how high he can jump.
No one said it makes sense. The supernatural transcends logic.
The difference between God and that dragon is that no sane person has claimed to have a relationship with that dragon. We have Christian scientist but I'm sure none of them have claimed to have had a relationship with dragons. You, yourself, said God PROBABLY doesn't exist. I'm sure you don't state that dragons probably don't exist.
I'm not motivated by what I can get in the afterlife. I am motivated by love for God which naturally inspires a person to tell others about Him and to serve a life that He would want. No god is ever worth following if people are obliged to worship him because of the fear of hell. That is not love. Love casts out all fear. If one fears hell then one doesn't know God.
Maybe for some people but that isn't the case with me. If a person truly loved another they would do good to them without expecting a reward. You do not know what is in my heart and what I know. You assume the resurrection didn't take place and I am telling you that you are wrong.
That really does not come to the forefront when one loves Jesus. If one loves Jesus, they will be inspired to spread that love and the message of Him. If I worship Jesus because I only think He'd save me from it or because I'm frightened of it then I am nothing more than someone who is cornered to serve Him. Fear enslaves people. I will not be compelled to worship a God I do not respect or love. Why waste my life then?
Again Claire, you nailed it here. Bravo!
I believe that heaven holds no negativity. We are all one, over there, and everyone loves everyone else. The labels we give ourselves here, don't make any difference in heaven.
Anyone who doesn't believe this should read all the accounts of near-death experiences that have been recorded, some by professionals, some by Atheists, and some who on Earth, believed in different religions. When they got there (to heaven), none of that mattered.
The only thing that did matter is how much love that person had given to others while he/she was in the body. We complicate things down here on Earth, but truly, it's so simple. All we really are here to do is show love to each other. If we can do that, we've accomplished out goal. Too bad it's so hard for some...
No, although it doesn't matter whether the idea is appealing or not. If there is no evidence to support the idea then there is no rational reason to believe it. Assuming it did exist and did allow atheists into heaven, it still sounds like an eternity there would become tedious pretty quickly. What could you possibly do for an eternity that would keep you preoccupied? Surely you can't spend you're time having a lot of sex, for example, as adultery is wrong according to Christianity. That's just one example, but my point is I think many people would grow bored of heaven as time went on.
Interestingly, I've found that if non-believers were allowed into heaven, it would mean that belief in a god and the following of his rules and teachings is completely pointless and unnecessary. In effect it renders the whole idea of religious doctrine null.
Consider a man who was raised in an irreligious household, and when he reaches an age where he begins to question life and his existence he comes to the conclusion that there is no god, no meaning to life, and he is free to live how he feels fit. So this man lives his life based on his own moral framework and his own meaning. He might have 'been around the block', indulged in hedonistic activities, possibly committed the odd crime, so on. When he dies, he indeed finds himself at the Pearly Gates, where God says "Atheists are very welcome in heaven, but you're guilty of adultery, and I don't like adultery, so you're not allowed in. It's fine that you don't believe in me, but you've still got to follow my rules".
To allow atheists into heaven, God would have to accept that they don't believe in him, and therefore have no reason to follow his rules. To deny someone access based on the breaking of any of those rules would be absurd and illogical on God's part. In effect, in order for God's allowance of atheists into heaven to make sense, he would have to allow anyone and everyone into heaven, or simply not have any rules he thinks people should abide by.
How could anyone be bored of God and His kingdom because of living with atheists?
That wasn't what I said. Heaven is supposedly an eternal state of bliss, enjoyment, etc. Think of the activities and pleasures people indulge in in their finite lifetimes; people get bored of them on occasion. Think of doing them for an eternity, surely that would grow tedious over time. You would lose interest in heaven, possibly even desire for an actual end. Of course I am assuming that the pleasures of heaven are the worldly pleasures we enjoy today, but even if the experiences of an afterlife are so different that I cannot possibly comprehend them here and now, it still stands that people grow tired of things as time goes by. I don't really want to live to 80 years, let alone an eternity.
Besides that was only a minor point of my comment, and not the main focus of my argument.
I'm much more interested in life right here, now, regardless of what any one person believes. I can choose who to be with and what kind of life I live. The concept of a place above the universe with a throne and angels and lots of religious people doesn't sound like eternal bliss. Just take a look at what has been done in the name of religion up to and including our present day.
having belief in mind is a kind of helpfor us. it is more important for us that what our mind is.heaven is in our heart.
LOL. Cutting out assumptions are not what those who read the bible as truth are able to do. Where do you start and where do you end up? Who decides what to cut and how far to cut? Everyone thinks they can tell others how much to cut. So asking someone if they know how to interpret the bible is asking them if they know how to read.
I assume you are talking about Christianity! The answer your question , …. “Who decides what to cut and how far to cut?” I would suggest; forget every interpretation we have been taught. Christianity is supposed to be centered upon Jesus Christ, SO I would suggest everyone open the bible and read only those things that Jesus is said to have said. Attempt to not interpret anything he said.
Do not change the meanings of anything “written in red” based upon something anyone else may have said. After we have done this …. If we can keep a clear head, read Matthew 23 and 24 as if you were reading all of this for the first time.
In Matthew 23 Jesus is telling the Pharisees and scribes things they were going to do to his followers. In Matthew 24 four of his disciples ask Jesus in a PRIVATE conversation, “When are these things going to happen …” Those things they heard Jesus saying to the pharisee. Jesus goes on to tell them in a PRIVATE conversation many things which are going to happen TO THEM. AND THEN he says “This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled …” Jesus said thin around 30 AD. Twenty five years later Paul said "it has not happened YET" when some of the followers thought it might have already happened, they were all expecting it to happen soon. 1960 years ago Paul said it has not happened yet. And there are people finding comfort, still pointing at Paul’s words believing “It has not happened yet.
People interpret this statement “this generation shall not pass …” to mean that Jesus was telling them of things which will happen way, way, way far into the future. Why would Jesus even mention this to those people if he was not speaking of things that concerned them. This is the father of hundreds of misinterpretations. IMHO; If we can understand scriptures without projecting different meanings upon simple statements, we would all reach different conclusions than the ones we have been clinging to.
False interpretations are why there are so many different denominations of Christianity.
You say false interpretation is the reason for so many sects. I say interpretation is the reason. False implies there is a correct way. Although I've read your posts and find your interpretation interesting, only time will tell if you are correct in your attempt to decipher prophesy.
But, I agree with you that the words and actions of Jesus should be all that those who want to be Christian should worry about. Unfortunately, even the words in red should be viewed with caution. Each gospel infuses the thoughts of the writer. I think that may be one reason Jesus didn't put pen to parchment himself. Follow his lead, follow his action. Do as he does, not do as you think he said. As we can see on any occasion people discuss him; each understanding of what was said leads down a different path.
Totally I agree with you there. I am not a christian. My family pushed it down my throat
As a child and as a result...well you see what I mean. I can't stand christians with their goody two shoes oh hey look at me. I'm so perfect attitudes about everything in general. You know.
I don't think anyone should be down on Christians as a whole. self professed Christians/theists are as varied in their/our behavior as the rest of humanity. Whatever my faults are (?) they would be mine regardless of religious orientation or the lack thereof. We are what we are no matter what we call ourselves or think ourselves to be.
Christians say "I don't hate the sinner" they hate the sin.
Maybe you should say "I don't hate the christian" I hate their sin?
read Mark Twains "letters from the earth".... 'ol Sam C. had an outlook on heaven that i think most of us would understand if we were honest about it,.... i have no clue nor do i care if all nations/creeds will be there,... i think that heaven, as it has been pretty much universally described for 100's-1000's of years,.... sounds boring as hell,.... no scratch that,.... hell sounds infinitely more interesting.
lets think about this for a moment shall we????....... heaven is a place of euphoric happiness where we dwell with the divine creator,.... as i was led to believe as a child (my raising being different from ya'lls of course) we're all supposed to be wearing white flowing robes, singing in choirs and playing the harp,..... that pretty much cover the list of religious art for the last 2000 years?????......... ok,... i guess we get wings according to Christian mythology and i agree it would be pretty damn cool to fly,... but given that we're all wearing flowing white robes,... the view from below might get a bit sketchy,... hmmmm????
lets not even go into the idea that only a small percent of the human race is musically inclined, let alone genuinely talented,.... so its going to be like a nuclear level karaoke bar in heaven,.... forgive me,... that sounds like hell.
ive heard no mention of beer,... or steak,.... or pizza,... or chocolate .....or sex in heaven........... 99% of the human race spends the greatest portion of their lives in pursuit of THOSE very things all the while professing to want a heaven that, by all descriptions, contains NONE of these things.
AND,.... by the standards widely accepted to gain entrance to this dull eternal karaoke bar,.... only the most sinless, stainless persons will be there, (the folks who blew themselves up as suicide bombers will be there too,.... and they already know how to fly so they can save the time of getting the wings fitted.)..... so it sounds dull,.... positively boring.
so,.... if i understand this correctly,.... we should be striving to live lives that run contrary to the human nature that our alleged creator endowed us with,.... we should be denying ourselves all of the hedonistic pleasures that we've had the god given brain to devise over the millennia, in order to gain entry to a heaven that contains NOTHING that we as humans enjoy,.... milk and honey?,... really?........
ambrosia????....... seriously that’s a Jello salad with cool whip and pineapple in it,… and I secretly kind f like it,….. But I don’t wana live off it.
So I suppose my answer to your question is,…… I’m gleefully going to hell,…. The grill there is already hot, should be perfect for steak,… all the really interesting people will be there,…. Hitler, Kennedy,.. Jimmy Hoffa ,…. A quarter of the popes,….. If FDR is there we’ll have a martini.
If you figure that out, wouldn't that become another religion? Are you a prophet?
Good point. Sorry, I'm over compensating in response.
roflmao....This literally made me laugh out loud. Thank you for this big of humor in my Wednesday.
How's my fav other Atheist who must be busy cause I've not been entertained by her thought provoking post and have been missing her greatly?
I'm good. Started college this week, so I'm trying to juggle my new responsibilities with my old responsibilities. I've been reading a lot, but didn't want to comment on much of it because doing so would either earn me a ban or get my computer thrown out of the window so as not to be contaminated with the stupid :-)
Julie, it does me good to think I made you smile.
I was channeling him as I typed it....
D**n it Jim! What can I do? I'm a doctor not a spacekey repairman!
Cap'n Kirk wouldn't say "Jim". That's his own name... c'mon man!
Nor was Jim a doctor...so....I moved to the next logical line, that of "Bones".
There's some things you can't play loosey goosey with sir... the original Star Trek is one of them.
But Captain Kirk would make some request of Bones, and Dr. McCoy would famously protest that he was a doctor, not a ".....". So rather than loosey goosey, it was a classic Star Trek reference.
Don't make me get you a red shirt, Missy.
Funny Beth, I was completely with him when he switched to bones.
No, no. Shat makes a good all purpose point of blame. Go for it.
Star Trek, TOS. Boldly going where, um, where, um, Twilight Zone had gone before!
Give me the red pill!
Right in the middle? What would that be - a God that created all, but was incompetent or stupid and did not do it right?
Maybe that made the earth but then had to wait a billion years to make life because it was being pelted with rocks?
Maybe that man all the animals but man in pairs, then had to partially disassemble the man for parts to make woman?
That made the woman evil, then tempted her with an apple, knowing she would fail the test?
That made His creations so poorly that He had to wipe them all out and start over?
That was unable to make an eye that would last more than a few years? Or joints the same, so that His beloved creations would suffer arthritis pain half their life? That filled the world with diseases so his loved ones could suffer even more?
That has the morals of a beast - using the might makes right principle almost exclusively?
That kind of god?
Interesting concept. If knowledge of truth would cause the plan to fail, whatever could the actual goal of the plan be? To populate Hell?
Can't see that it makes any difference whether a different dimension or a different universe, except that the gods apparently violate natural laws at will and those laws would seem to hold true for all the dimensions we occupy. Plus there is some slight evidence that there MAY be at least one more universe "out there" somewhere.
"It is written". Sorry, that someone, somewhere and somewhen wrote something down is exactly zero reason to believe it to be true. Nevertheless, if we were created for amusement any actions of the gods from that creation would seem insufficient reason to worship OR love them. It completely nullifies the entire concept of god as presented in modern mono-theistic religions, leaving man with nothing. No "gods" as we understand the term, nothing that loves us. no eternity, nothing supernatural to love. And, of course, zero understanding or knowledge about what gods might be out there.
It does, indeed, put man back into the same place he came from: "I will believe in gods because I want to, not because I have any reason to do so." Any and all "evidence" for these gods can only stem from ignorance, not from knowledge.
It's threads like this that remind of why most of the people I associate with these days are neither atheist or religious.
That being said, yes I would want to be in heaven and yes I believe that people of all faiths as well those without adhering to a faith would be there.
However, I feel the need to point out, first of all, that the Christ parable is lifted almost exactly from the myth of Hermes in Greek mythology. In fact, the term 'christ' comes from the Greek word 'khristos' which means to anoint. In a nutshell, Christ or khristos is a psychological term that describes a very peaceful and humble acceptance of all things. To be free of judgment, scorn, hatred and fear. Now that would be heaven as far as I'm concerned.
I hope it's ok to post this link here. It was a great story from an Atheist/Agnostic in the Clinton admin. I thought I'd share it with anyone who was interested.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201 … paging=off
by Roberto Lima Netto4 years ago
KW: Jesus, Christianity, Catholic Church, Christ, Buda, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Gospel of John, Gospel of Thomas, Nicene Council, Description: The article discusses the controversy about Jesus being God or an illuminated...
by Billie Kelpin2 years ago
I've been going back and forth, up and down, and sideways trying to get a short, short story that I wrote the way I want it. I went to critiquecircle (which I highly reccommend for it's excellent set up), but now...
by Mikel G Roberts7 years ago
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.