NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm pretty sure that on NSG before I have mentioned that I'm an atheist. I have posted my reasons behind it before so I won't go into that.

I would like an honest answer from the Christians here. I'm not seeking to bait you. I would just like to know something about you and your beliefs.

Last night I had a discussion with a young Christian, a kid who identified himself/herself as a Baptist and they asked me about my beliefs and when I said I was an atheist they were surprised because before I had told them my beliefs, they had told me a joke about a Catholic and atheist.

I think they might have been surprised that I laughed and said it was a good joke, as I took no offence to it.

Anyway, they said that those who accept Jesus Christ as their saviour and God they they won't go to hell. That even if you're wrong that at least you don't lose out.

I said I just can't believe it because I don't find it plausible.

They asked me to think about and that I should accept Him.

I'll make it clear, I was very civil and I never once mentioned my beliefs until I was asked. I never said anything beyond that I simply didn't think religion fitted my faith needs. I also said that I believe that as long as you're a good person and you've done the right thing that religion and a belief a God is secondary.

Why is it that when an atheist says they don't believe or cannot accept those two figures, some Christians ask you to think about and consider it? Or they tell you that you're not going to hell if you believe in God? Or seem to think that religion makes you a better person?

I'm not looking to start a flame war; I'm just curious as to why.

Thanks NSG. :)

This is sort of a tricky question, first of all because there are divisions among christians as to what 'belief in God' really means. I'll try to outline here the mainstream Protestant perspective and the Catholic one:

Mainstream Protestants believe that as long as you 'believe,' in a purely intellectual sense, that God exists and that Jesus is your Lord and Savior you are saved. In other words, once you accept that you cannot earn your way into heaven, that the only way you can be 'saved' is by having faith in Christ and His mercy you've done all you have to do to be saved. This realization is called being born again, and once you are born again you will, in theory, become a better person. Thus, a protestant generally does not believe that an athiest can get into heaven since the athiest has not made the required intellectual leap of faith.

The Catholic belief (meaning the official teaching of the Vatican) is more complicated. Catholics believe that faith (intellectual acceptance of God's existence) is only part of 'being saved'. Good works- being a charitable and loving person, treating your neighbor as yourself- are necessary. In order to love God you must love your neighbor...Love of others is essential. Good works stem from faith, usually. Thus, a Catholic would probably be more concerned with whether or not an atheist is a loving person than whether or not he intellecually accepts Christ as his Savior.

This is grossly abbreviating these theologies, but I hope it clarifies some of your question. It is also worth noting that Faith is not simply 'believing in God's existence' but, once one accepts that He exists, trusting in Him.

To me it's the same reaction as the one I get from parents of children when I say that I don't want to have children or be a parent. It's just something they can't seem to comprehend another person not wanting.

Thanks OA. That makes more sense. I better understand what they mean. I never did grasp the differences before. Even if it's a basic explanation, it's more than what I've been told before.

Hmm... my beliefs are the opposite (logicwise) of the protestant beliefs, kinda. They feel that going to heaven requires believing in god and jesus, not good works, while I feel that gpoing to heaven (or, more likely, to a good reincarnation) requires good works but not belief in god or jesus. I'm sure that many people (especially the christians) will disagree with my beliefs, but you should ask yourself this: Which do you prefer, people believing that the asnwer is to worship a god other than your own or people believing that the answer is doing good deeds?

Why is it that when an atheist says they don't believe or cannot accept those two figures, some Christians ask you to think about and consider it? Or they tell you that you're not going to hell if you believe in God? Or seem to think that religion makes you a better person?


First of all I must confess I am not a perfect Christian. So take my opinion for what its worth. Come to think of it I have every different views on the world than most Christians but I do believe in the teachings of Christ thus my affiliation with them.

So on to answer your questions:
1. They are concenred for you. They believe what they believe the same way you do. They wish you to be saved the same way they think they are. You should take it as a compliment... unless they start leafing your lawn and stalking you through town.

2. For a Christian, a person must believe that Christ is their savior to go to heaven. Thus those who dont will go to Hell. However I have heard some speculate that Hell isnt the firey place of damnation. Its actually far worse than that. Its a place without God.

3. Cant speak for other relgions, but for atleast Christianity it does make alot of people "better" or atleast feel better. I know from personal experience that having rules of conduct that are outside of me, makes me to always better myself. It is however not an always winning battle. Some days I come out ahead while others I come out behind. For a bad example its kinda like having a parent that always knows what your doing. So you try and make your parent proud of you... well I did say it was bad example.

Now I also believe that an athiest who acts moral/just/ethical/etc. is more of a better person than a religious person who acts the same way for fear of punishment at the end. Religion doesnt work that way.

Oh, by the way, Christianity is more of a relationship with God than a religion. Correct me if I am wrong but I think Jesus siad that religion was a scourge of humanity.

I hope what I typed puts some things into perspective from my perspective ;)

P.S.

I think Athiesm is a belief system that is very similiar to a religion. Its a religion with no God :eek:

To me it's the same reaction as the one I get from parents of children when I say that I don't want to have children or be a parent. It's just something they can't seem to comprehend another person not wanting.

A subconsciously conformist attitude at work maybe?

In all honesty, I'd rather go to place without god than to hell -- and remember, Dragons are firepoof.

That's because they want to you to join their special group. You see, if everyone was in their special group then all would be well. If you refuse, they come back. You're a tough sell but they don't give up. They try to forment doubt in your mind so that when you're mingling with the special group again, you'll be more receptive.

It's the same for all religions.
Heck, it's the same for selling. Otherwise, I wouldn't be disturbed while eating by the phone trying to sell me stuff.

A subconsciously conformist attitude at work maybe?

Perhaps, but I look at it this way:

Religion makes this person happy, because of this, they want to share it with others thinking that it will make others happy as it did them. However, because it makes them happy, they can't understand why someone would reject it. Raising children works in the same way.

Obviously there are differences between being religious and being a parent, but at the base level I believe this to be true.

Hmm... my beliefs are the opposite (logicwise) of the protestant beliefs, kinda. They feel that going to heaven requires believing in god and jesus, not good works, while I feel that gpoing to heaven (or, more likely, to a good reincarnation) requires good works but not belief in god or jesus. I'm sure that many people (especially the christians) will disagree with my beliefs, but you should ask yourself this: Which do you prefer, people believing that the asnwer is to worship a god other than your own or people believing that the answer is doing good deeds?

The latter. Believing in being a good person and doing good deeds; doing the right thing to make the world a better place. But that's just my beliefs. It would be nice if this was reality but not everyone thinks like this. :)

My opinions on the matter are somewhat complicated, as I don't look to any particular doctrine as a basis.

First off, I don't even believe in Hell: there is nothing that a person can do in a limited lifetime to warrant ETERNAL damnation.

And, even if I believed there was a Hell, I do not think that mere faith in God is enough. The ideology that faith in God somehow makes you automatically better is flawed and has been disproven in so many ways. Hell, I don't even think that belief in God is a requirement. Why should a just and kind Buddhist be condemned to Hell because of his faith?

Therefore, it is my belief that salvation comes through one's acts.

I think Athiesm is a belief system that is very similiar to a religion. Its a religion with no God :eek:

Nah, it's not, 'cause atheism is an absence of faith. Without faith, there can be no religion. On the other hand, I suppose you could argue that there's belief in the lack of god... arrrgh! *head explodes*

Why is it that when an atheist says they don't believe or cannot accept those two figures, some Christians ask you to think about and consider it? Or they tell you that you're not going to hell if you believe in God? Or seem to think that religion makes you a better person?

It all goes back to what Jesus said. In John 3:5-8, Jesus stated I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life. So don't be surprised when I say, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it wants. Just as you can hear the wind but can't tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can't expalin how people are born of the Spirit.

In verse 14 through 16, Jesus continues by saying And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifed up, so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life. "For God love the word so much that he gave his one and only Son, so tht everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

That is why people say that those who do not believe in God and Jesus will be going to hell.

First of all I must confess I am not a perfect Christian. So take my opinion for what its worth. Come to think of it I have every different views on the world than most Christians but I do believe in the teachings of Christ thus my affiliation with them.

Actually, there is not such thing as a perfect Christian. We all fall short of perfection. So we are all in the same boat.

...I have heard some speculate that Hell isnt the firey place of damnation. Its actually far worse than that. Its a place without God.

I keep hearing that. Just what the hell is that supposed to mean (no pun intended)? :confused:

If Hell is merely a plane of existence without God...then can we simply liken Heaven and Hell to a nightclub, with Heaven being the VIP room for God and his posse (Christians), and Hell being the main floor for the general public (everybody else)?

Perhaps, but I look at it this way:

Religion makes this person happy, because of this, they want to share it with others thinking that it will make others happy as it did them. However, because it makes them happy, they can't understand why someone would reject it. Raising children works in the same way.

Obviously there are differences between being religious and being a parent, but at the base level I believe this to be true.


Your statements betray a serious lack of understanding the religious mindset. Whenever faith is used simply as a comfort item or as a way of saying 'my group (and thus me) is better than yours' it is seriously immature. Indeed, mature faith requires doubt, an open mind, and a respect for others... In fact, mature faith forces a person outside of his or her comfort zone, makes them do things they would rather not do (spend a sunday at a homeless shelter, give up their coat on a cold day). Christians, for example, are called to follow Christ to the Cross, called selflessly suffer for others. A mature faith, whatever else it may be, is certainly not primarily a defense mechanism or a comforting dream.

1. They are concenred for you. They believe what they believe the same way you do. They wish you to be saved the same way they think they are. You should take it as a compliment... unless they start leafing your lawn and stalking you through town.

I don't know about you but last bit made me giggle.

But I see what you mean about taking it as a compliment. I once told a friend that I felt uncomfortable with another friend praying for me, and they told me I should take it as a compliment because they were concerned about my spiritual welfare.

2. For a Christian, a person must believe that Christ is their savior to go to heaven. Thus those who dont will go to Hell. However I have heard some speculate that Hell isnt the firey place of damnation. Its actually far worse than that. Its a place without God.

A place without God? You'd think based on that it's the perfect for an atheist. ;)

3. Cant speak for other relgions, but for atleast Christianity it does make alot of people "better" or atleast feel better. I know from personal experience that having rules of conduct that are outside of me, makes me to always better myself. It is however not an always winning battle. Some days I come out ahead while others I come out behind. For a bad example its kinda like having a parent that always knows what your doing. So you try and make your parent proud of you... well I did say it was bad example.

It's not a bad example. It's a fair example. But it would be more like you're a child, which is why the parent would know what you're doing because they would have more of an idea what you're up to.

Now I also believe that an athiest who acts moral/just/ethical/etc. is more of a better person than a religious person who acts the same way for fear of punishment at the end. Religion doesnt work that way.

There are those who are atheists who act a certain way out of fear too. They are just as the religious who act a certain out of fear.

Your statements betray a serious lack of understanding the religious mindset. Whenever faith is used simply as a comfort item or as a way of saying 'my group (and thus me) is better than yours' it is seriously immature. Indeed, mature faith requires doubt, an open mind, and a respect for others... In fact, mature faith forces a person outside of his or her comfort zone, makes them do things they would rather not do (spend a sunday at a homeless shelter, give up their coat on a cold day). Christians, for example, are called to follow Christ to the Cross, called selflessly suffer for others. A mature faith, whatever else it may be, is certainly not primarily a defense mechanism or a comforting dream.

And they do not derive some amount of happiness from doing these good deeds?

At any rate, where did I mention any of this? All I said was that they derive some amount of happiness from following their religion in the same way that a parent derives happiness from raising a child.

It all goes back to what Jesus said. In John 3:5-8, Jesus stated I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. Humans can reproduce only human life, but the Holy Spirit gives birth to spiritual life. So don't be surprised when I say, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it wants. Just as you can hear the wind but can't tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can't expalin how people are born of the Spirit.

In verse 14 through 16, Jesus continues by saying And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifed up, so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life. "For God love the word so much that he gave his one and only Son, so tht everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

.

So because of mysterious wind and Mo doing a pole dance with a snake, we're going down to fry......I duppose that makes as much sense as anything else..Bit more than transubstantiation, but thats not hard...

And they do not derive some amount of happiness from doing these good deeds?

At any rate, where did I mention any of this? All I said was that they derive some amount of happiness from following their religion in the same way that a parent derives happiness from raising a child.


I didn't mean to insult you, sorry for the tone of my last post. Anyway, here's the critical point-

If I give a cold man my coat because I want to be rewarded in heaven, show off to my friends, feel good about myself, or am afraid of hell- in otherwords if I do a good deed for selfish reasons, it is a result of pride and narcissism. This is immature faith.

If I give a cold man my coat because I recognize him as a child of God who deserves respect, or because I believe this is the only life he has to live and I want to make it more comfortable- in other words, if I do a good deed out of love, it is a result of mature faith. Happiness; feeling good about myself is a by product of my good deed, not an ends.

I hope that makes it clearer.

I didn't mean to insult you, sorry for the tone of my last post. Anyway, here's the critical point-

If I give a cold man my coat because I want to be rewarded in heaven, show off to my friends, feel good about myself, or am afraid of hell- in otherwords if I do a good deed for selfish reasons, it is a result of pride and narcissism. This is immature faith.

If I give a cold man my coat because I recognize him as my a child of God who deserves respect, or because I believe this is the only life he has to live and I want to make it more comfortable- in other words, if I do a good deed out of love, it is a result of mature faith. Happiness; feeling good about myself is a by product of my good deed, not an ends.

I hope that makes it clearer.

Ahhh, things are clearer now. I see where the rub is. Curse my overly-succinct writing style!

I never meant to imply that the only ends of religion was happiness. However, I do believe that it is a reason among many for people to want to share their religion. It is a by-product of your faith that you would wish others to have, again, among other aspects.

Why is it that when an atheist says they don't believe or cannot accept those two figures, some Christians ask you to think about and consider it? Or they tell you that you're not going to hell if you believe in God? Or seem to think that religion makes you a better person?

Some christians are assholes.

Now before anyone trips, notice the word "some." Any christian who tells me I'm going to hell because I don't believe in their particular version of god is an asshole, in my opinion. They're also extraordinarily arrogant. And that applies to any person who argues that religion in and of itself makes one a better person as well.

So because of mysterious wind and Mo doing a pole dance with a snake, we're going down to fry......I duppose that makes as much sense as anything else..Bit more than transubstantiation, but thats not hard...

That's why I tend to look at the Bible less as a rulebook and more of a guidebook.

If Hell is merely a plane of existence without God...then can we simply liken Heaven and Hell to a nightclub, with Heaven being the VIP room for God and his posse (Christians), and Hell being the main floor for the general public (everybody else)?

I think thats taking it a little to lightly. Based on my understanding of Christian belief, God is the force that holds the universe together, maintaining peace, and equilibrium. If He is no longer present, my guess would be that reality would fall apart, and chaos would ensue. Might sound a little overly dramatic, but i think thats what would happen. If not that, then we would just live in a world without God's protection and care. From an atheist perspective, thats what were in, but from a Christian perspective, the atheists have God's protection, they just choose to ignore it. So, it wouldn't be an atheist's paradise in the eyes of a Christian, but it would be a place where non-believers would have to live with what they believed. I'm not sure if I was completely clear, but i tried :)

Actually, there is not such thing as a perfect Christian. We all fall short of perfection. So we are all in the same boat.

I thought about that as I wrote my posting but I wanted to let people know where I stood.

A running joke at my church is that the seating is for sinners only heh...

Besides, no one said it would be easy to live up to God's expectations. Even the disciples stuggled with being with God and they were hand picked by Christ!

I keep hearing that. Just what the hell is that supposed to mean (no pun intended)? :confused:

If Hell is merely a plane of existence without God...then can we simply liken Heaven and Hell to a nightclub, with Heaven being the VIP room for God and his posse (Christians), and Hell being the main floor for the general public (everybody else)?

Just what I hear. But if you think about it, the bible describes it as a firey place with a giant worm that eats you or something like that. So if it is described like that in the absense of God then Heaven with God's presence must be truly divine.

Also from my understanding Hell wasnt created for people. It was created for Lucifer. Again if I am wrong please point it out.

I know enough about Christianity to be dangerous :p



I often talk to other Christians about where do people go before Christianity came along? Where did the Egyptians, Aztecs, Mowhawks, Buddists, Shintoist, etc. go after they died? Where do African tribals go after they die in today's world who never heard of Christ?

Some think they go to Hell but I on the other hand think that each person is judged on a individual basis. They could claim ignorance for example. Its not their fault that they were born a thousand years before Jesus.

Know I suppose a person is weighed differently who heard of Jesus but rejected him. But then again what about the modern Hinduist who lives a moral and just life? Are they thrown on the ash heap of Hell?

If we know any thing about God its that he is just and loving. I suspect the answer is so.

...So Hell's a neverending acid-trip...?

How did you come to that conclusion?

I think thats taking it a little to lightly. Based on my understanding of Christian belief, God is the force that holds the universe together, maintaining peace, and equilibrium. If He is no longer present, my guess would be that reality would fall apart, and chaos would ensue. Might sound a little overly dramatic, but i think thats what would happen. If not that, then we would just live in a world without God's protection and care. From an atheist perspective, thats what were in, but from a Christian perspective, the atheists have God's protection, they just choose to ignore it. So, it wouldn't be an atheist's paradise in the eyes of a Christian, but it would be a place where non-believers would have to live with what they believed. I'm not sure if I was completely clear, but i tried :)

...So Hell's a neverending acid-trip...?

Some christians are assholes.

Now before anyone trips, notice the word "some." Any christian who tells me I'm going to hell because I don't believe in their particular version of god is an asshole, in my opinion. They're also extraordinarily arrogant. And that applies to any person who argues that religion in and of itself makes one a better person as well.

Does being an Athiest make one better?

----

On a different note, I don't try and convert people so I expect people not to try and convert me, athisim included :p

On a second note I also believe that conversion begins within and not from people drop leafing a park or the occasional flame war on a forum. ;)

I often talk to other Christians about where do people go before Christianity came along? Where did the Egyptians, Aztecs, Mowhawks, Buddists, Shintoist, etc. go after they died? Where do African tribals go after they die in today's world who never heard of Christ?

Some think they go to Hell but I on the other hand think that each person is judged on a individual basis. They could claim ignorance for example. Its not their fault that they were born a thousand years before Jesus.

Know I suppose a person is weighed differently who heard of Jesus but rejected him. But then again what about the modern Hinduist who lives a moral and just life? Are they thrown on the ash heap of Hell?

If we know any thing about God its that he is just and loving. I suspect the answer is so.

Alot of people in my family are Jehovah's Witness. They have told me that every person that was never exposed to the teachings of Christ will be reincarnated after Armageddon and they will be given the option of learning to live under Jehovah's rules. They can accept, and continue to live in paradise under the laws set down be Jehovah, or they can reject it, and be erased from existence. (Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in hell, they believe that those who don't deserve eternal life in paradise shall be forgotten by Jehovah, and therefore not resurrected.)

Why is it that when an atheist says they don't believe or cannot accept those two figures, some Christians ask you to think about and consider it?
why do some atheists always ask me if I have considered my faith?

Or they tell you that you're not going to hell if you believe in God?
why do some atheists tell me I am stupid/ignorant/uninformed/brainwashed if I do believe in God?


Or seem to think that religion makes you a better person?


why do some atheists seem to think that atheism makes you a better person?

Does being an Athiest make one better?

----

On a different note, I don't try and convert people so I expect people not to try and convert me, athisim included :p

On a second note I also believe that conversion begins within and not from people drop leafing a park or the occasional flame war on a forum. ;)

In and of itself? Of course not, and that's a silly question. There are plenty of atheist assholes too--I've been accused of being one from time to time. (I've also been considered a nice guy--it's all about context.) My point is that there's nothing inherent in a belief system that makes a person likable. Now, there are certain belief systems which harbor a larger percentage of assholes than others, but I see no need to get into which groups those might be.

why do atheists always ask me if I have considered my faith?


why do atheists tell me I am stupid/ignorant/uninformed/brainwashed if I do believe in God?




why do atheists seem to think that atheism makes you a better person?

All atheists do this, Smunkee? Really? All of us? Give me a break.

I didn't mean to insult you, sorry for the tone of my last post. Anyway, here's the critical point-

If I give a cold man my coat because I want to be rewarded in heaven, show off to my friends, feel good about myself, or am afraid of hell- in otherwords if I do a good deed for selfish reasons, it is a result of pride and narcissism. This is immature faith.

If I give a cold man my coat because I recognize him as a child of God who deserves respect, or because I believe this is the only life he has to live and I want to make it more comfortable- in other words, if I do a good deed out of love, it is a result of mature faith. Happiness; feeling good about myself is a by product of my good deed, not an ends.

I hope that makes it clearer.

Well put. IIRC, Jesus spoke out against this kind of hypocrisy.

All atheists do this, Smunkee? Really? All of us? Give me a break.

sorry. some I will go edit it.

For those who say Athiesm is a religion, let me point out a very good quote I saw on the forums:

"Athiesm is a religion like bald is a hair color."


On-topic, though: people are stupid. Whether they're christian or muslim or athiest or buddhist, the majority of people are really really stupid, and will do stupid things that will annoy people that are less stupid than they are. Life is basically the objective of trying to survive while repressing the urge to kill those people.

I have a somewhat more bizarre question. How did the Christian communities come up with the idea that one had to die before going to Heaven or Hell?

Is there some sort of Biblical support for this?

I have a somewhat more bizarre question. How did the Christian communities come up with the idea that one had to die before going to Heaven or Hell?

Is there some sort of Biblical support for this?

I'm assuming it stems from the likelihood that the religion's roots started from the question "What happens to us when we die?".

To answer the OP, They do such out of compassion, and the desire to help you. Although your beliefs do differ from theirs, they believe that you need to accept certain truths to avoid eternal punishment, and pain. They want you to consider their point of view, and by accepting their point of view, you will avoid all of the unneccessary turmoil and wrath that is associated with hell.

Many people take offense to this, but you should just thank them. Some people see such a move of conversion as an attack on their personal beliefs. Instead I would just thank them, for their loving nature, and for their concern about your eternal place in the world. The person you are talking about really is trying to help you.

The ideology that faith in God somehow makes you automatically better is flawed and has been disproven in so many ways.

I agree, however as a Christian I don't believe that my faith in God automatically makes me better.

Here's what i believe - feel free to question/ignore it however you choose.

When i decided to accept God's forgiveness - i.e. i realised that I'm not perfect and needed His help - He forgave me (i.e. He chose not to remember all the bad stuff). And I then received two things straight away 1) A guarantee of eternal life i.e. I'm going to heaven (thats very simplistic but a good place to start) and 2) the Holy Spirit.

It's part 2 where the 'becoming better' part comes. There is no 'quick fix' if I want to be a better person then i need to work at it. But it's the Holy Spirit that gives me the motivation and encouragment to do that. Unfortunately many Christians (even ones im very good friends with) dont seem to want to change (or are unable to).

I realise that a lot of Christianity is really difficult to understand if you're not a regular churchgoer (let alone a christian!) so i guess what im trying to say is that as christians we don't always have all the answers, and we don't always get it right, so bear with us!

Dan

To answer the OP, They do such out of compassion, and the desire to help you. Although your beliefs do differ from theirs, they believe that you need to accept certain truths to avoid eternal punishment, and pain. They want you to consider their point of view, and by accepting their point of view, you will avoid all of the unneccessary turmoil and wrath that is associated with hell.

Many people take offense to this, but you should just thank them. Some people see such a move of conversion as an attack on their personal beliefs. Instead I would just thank them, for their loving nature, and for their concern about your eternal place in the world. The person you are talking about really is trying to help you.

Though it is just kind of insulting at a very basic level to suggest that you have to agree with my point of view or suffer an eternity of hell and torment. Even if they say it with good intentions, it pisses me off.

Though it is just kind of insulting at a very basic level to suggest that you have to agree with my point of view or suffer an eternity of hell and torment. Even if they say it with good intentions, it pisses me off.

Unfortunately no one can help the way you would react. All I am suggesting is that if you talk to a post Council of Nicea Christain (I.E. Catholic/orthodox/protestant) generally this is the reason they are trying to convience you to accept their point of view. You may be offended by it, and that is your right. After all the path to hell is paved with good intentions. All I am suggesting is the personal reason they desire to help you, and ask that with this knowledge, you can begin to understand their point of view. Perhaps it will help you not to be so pissed off. After all you are the only one that can feel your emotions. If you let someone piss you off, you are the one to suffer, not them.

Edit: Besides why would it piss anyone off that someone will tell you that you are going to a place that you do not believe to exist. Do you take offense to this statement: Do what I say or else you will go to elysium? If it does not then why would hell bother you, if you believe it is not real?

why do some atheists always ask me if I have considered my faith?

why do some atheists tell me I am stupid/ignorant/uninformed/brainwashed if I do believe in God?

why do some atheists seem to think that atheism makes you a better person?

I only wanted to know why. I never understood why it mattered if I went to hell or not since I don't believe in God, hence hell and heaven are irrelevant to me. I wanted clarification as to what was meant because I never understood why it's important to someone else if I believe in God or not. Why would it matter to them? Wouldn't it be more important to focus on your personal relationship with God and make it better by being a good person?

Yes some atheists are assholes. In fact, every religion has assholes. Some are just closet assholes.

Unfortunately no one can help the way you would react. All I am suggesting is that if you talk to a post Council of Nicea Christain (I.E. Catholic/orthodox/protestant) generally this is the reason they are trying to convience you to accept their point of view. You may be offended by it, and that is your right. After all the path to hell is paved with good intentions. All I am suggesting is the personal reason they desire to help you, and ask that with this knowledge, you can begin to understand their point of view. Perhaps it will help you not to be so pissed off. After all you are the only one that can feel your emotions. If you let someone piss you off, you are the one to suffer, not them.

Edit: Besides why would it piss anyone off that someone will tell you that you are going to a place that you do not believe to exist. Do you take offense to this statement: Do what I say or else you will go to elysium? If it does not then why would hell bother you, if you believe it is not real?

It ticks me off because, while I may not believe in hell, I believe in their opinion. Their opinion is that I'm of the sort of person that, were hell to exist, I would be cast into it for all eternity. That's fucked up. I don't need to associate with people who consider me to be deserving of such punishment.

even if they believe that everyone deserves hell?

That just reflects even worse upon them, to me.

EDIT: Goddamn Timewarp.

It ticks me off because, while I may not believe in hell, I believe in their opinion. Their opinion is that I'm of the sort of person that, were hell to exist, I would be cast into it for all eternity. That's fucked up. I don't need to associate with people who consider me to be deserving of such punishment.

even if they believe that everyone deserves hell?

That just reflects even worse upon them, to me.

EDIT: Goddamn Timewarp.

so you hate Christians then?

Well there is always two ways to look at the situation, the glass is half empty or full. You could focus on the negative aspect of they think that in your current state that you deserve punishment and eternal torture, or you can look at it as they are so concerned for you, and they care for you so much they desire to talk to you to avoid all of that torture and torment. No one can help you with that. I do however understand your point of view. You value yourself, and your state of being. If someone comes to you and tells you that you are not good enough, then you are offended. It is understandable.

At least for you, you are supposidly going to hell for your lack of beliefs. In my case most of the post-nicean christains call me a heretic due to mine. Although I do disagree with the believe or suffer ideology. I prefer not to let anyone, if I can help it, to affect my mental or emotional state. I just thank them for their concern, and wish them a great day. As odd as it sounds to you, they really are trying to help you.

so you hate Christians then?

I do not think that is what he is saying. I think he is saying that he does not want to be de-valued because of his beliefs. It is after all a very human reaction.

Why is it that when an atheist says they don't believe or cannot accept those two figures, some Christians ask you to think about and consider it? Or they tell you that you're not going to hell if you believe in God? Or seem to think that religion makes you a better person?.

Because misery loves company. :)

Because misery loves company. :)

:D Thanks for making me laugh!

Though it is just kind of insulting at a very basic level to suggest that you have to agree with my point of view or suffer an eternity of hell and torment. Even if they say it with good intentions, it pisses me off.

Actually...most Christian sects are fundamentally the same in the regard that it is belief through Jesus that one is saved. It is in doctrine that most sects defer.

:D Thanks for making me laugh!

You're quite welcome. :)

I believe knowing Jesus is about relationship, having faith even when we can't see Him. He has help me in all areas of my live. He loved me even when I couldn't love myself or though I wasn't worth to live. I know I don't have all the answer and at times even fail Him. He never stop loving me we I made mistake.
There is time that he should me he was real, through healing. I used to have one leg and little short then the other. One day while at church without asking a gentleman came up behind me and told me God knew what is in my heart but won't ask Him. That night I walk out with both legs the same. Not only in that but I was living on barrow time. God should me His love and that he didn't judge me, but forgive me and has help me heal my past and showed me I do not walk this earth alone.

Hmm... my beliefs are the opposite (logicwise) of the protestant beliefs, kinda. They feel that going to heaven requires believing in god and jesus, not good works, while I feel that gpoing to heaven (or, more likely, to a good reincarnation) requires good works but not belief in god or jesus. I'm sure that many people (especially the christians) will disagree with my beliefs, but you should ask yourself this: Which do you prefer, people believing that the asnwer is to worship a god other than your own or people believing that the answer is doing good deeds?

Just out of curiosity, are you Hindu? It's just that the good works + reincarnation strikes me as two of the core beliefs of Hinduism.

so you hate Christians then?

No Szanth is just saying that the implication of (generally in my experience) complete strangers telling you that everything you have believed in for the past umpteen years is wrong, and they, complete strangers, have all the mystical answers to the universe in a little book, and that all you need to do to get into the afterlife is forsake your principles in lieu of theirs is not only insulting, but an egregious breach of good will.

Edited for spelling. It's apparently egregious...

No Szanth is just saying that the implication of (generally in my experience) complete strangers telling you that everything you have believed in for the past umpteen years is wrong, and they, complete strangers, have all the mystical answers to the universe in a little book, and that all you need to do to get into the afterlife is forsake your principles in lieu of theirs is not only insulting, but an aggregious breach of good will.

What he said.



<3

I do not think that is what he is saying. I think he is saying that he does not want to be de-valued because of his beliefs. It is after all a very human reaction.

yet, a basic tenant of Christianity is that "we are all deserving of hell" and he said "that just reflects even worse on them" meaning he is devaluing people based on their beliefs.

What he said.



<3

I try :)

yet, a basic tenant of Christianity is that "we are all deserving of hell" and he said "that just reflects even worse on them" meaning he is devaluing people based on their beliefs.

Blah! That stinks! How can people be deserving of hell if they're good people?

yet, a basic tenant of Christianity is that "we are all deserving of hell" and he said "that just reflects even worse on them" meaning he is devaluing people based on their beliefs.

Basically. If someone were to believe that we were all made of 100% cow feces and were to, regardless of any belief system or good deeds or any other good characteristic, going to be cast down into a very deep well after our deaths and sit there and mix with the well water for all eternity, then yes, I would think less of them for that belief.

Blah! That stinks! How can people be deserving of hell if they're good people?

nobody is a "good person" that's the whole freaking point of Christianity, we all suck.

Blah! That stinks! How can people be deserving of hell if they're good people?

Original Sin.

I have a somewhat more bizarre question. How did the Christian communities come up with the idea that one had to die before going to Heaven or Hell?

Is there some sort of Biblical support for this?

God didn't come out and say 'you all die before you enter heaven'. But then again, people died back then and are meant to be up there in heaven (Abraham for example).

A few people have been whipped off to heaven without their body going into the ground (Elijah and *kinda* Jesus spring to mind) but that's an exception.

So going on the evidence we're saying God tends to lety you die first.

Basically. If someone were to believe that we were all made of 100% cow feces and were to, regardless of any belief system or good deeds or any other good characteristic, going to be cast down into a very deep well after our deaths and sit there and mix with the well water for all eternity, then yes, I would think less of them for that belief.

so basically you get to think less of people due to their beliefs but if someone does that to you it's wrong and arrogant?

now is that a double standard or just plan hypocrisy?

so basically you get to think less of people due to their beliefs but if someone does that to you it's wrong and arrogant?

now is that a double standard or just plan hypocrisy?

Well let's see -

Someone thinks I'm shit.

I dislike them for it.


One comes before the other. Reaction - causality. If they don't think I'm shit, I'm cool with them. But regardless of how I feel about them, they ALWAYS think I'm shit. That's the difference.

No double standard. Try your persecution complex somewhere else plz.

Last night I had a discussion with a young Christian, a kid who identified himself/herself as a Baptist and they asked me about my beliefs and when I said I was an atheist they were surprised because before I had told them my beliefs, they had told me a joke about a Catholic and atheist.

I think they might have been surprised that I laughed and said it was a good joke, as I took no offence to it.just as most Christians won't be offended by jokes poking fun at Christians.

Anyway, they said that those who accept Jesus Christ as their saviour and God they they won't go to hell. That even if you're wrong that at least you don't lose out.

I said I just can't believe it because I don't find it plausible. seems a normal conversation.

They asked me to think about and that I should accept Him. ok, sounds like they are backing off and not "Shoving Religion down your throat" but saying you should look into it.

I'll make it clear, I was very civil and I never once mentioned my beliefs until I was asked. I never said anything beyond that I simply didn't think religion fitted my faith needs. I also said that I believe that as long as you're a good person and you've done the right thing that religion and a belief a God is secondary.funny this. so where they also civil in this 'discussion'? I'm sure you were civil, yet by saying "YOU" were civil makes it sound like they wern't.

yet by him/them saying "think about it" sounds more like they did not want to pressure you but for you to take your own pace and time. not to rely on what they said but do your own 'research'.

Why is it that when an atheist says they don't believe or cannot accept those two figures, some Christians ask you to think about and consider it? what would you rather have? someone saying think about it, or someone who expounds on the religion and tries to convert you right then and there?

and how many times does the Christian person get the "fairy person in the sky" or "delusional people" routine from an atheist? I think your friend was trying to get you to consider it. and not put pressure on you.

Or they tell you that you're not going to hell if you believe in God?typical scare tactic. if you want, respond to this by asking them "is that why you believe in God? because you are scared of Hell? I know people who believe in God because they love him and not because they fear his wrath or what would happen if they don't believe in him."

and if they respond with "but I do love Him."
then ask "Why the threat of sending people to Hell? If you love Him, then you shouldn't fear Hell and thus wouldn't use that as a threat."

that should stop or at least lessen their "Hellfire and Brimstone" argument.

Or seem to think that religion makes you a better person?This is a normal advertisement statement. it's the same reasoning politically minded people use, or people who live in one Country vs another, or anything that can be catagorized. "I have a Hybrid car, thus I am a better person." "I excercise every day, you should too, you will be a better person for it." "Volunteer in your community, you will be a better person for it." "Read/Read to your children you will be a better person for it." etc... Heck, I've heard Atheists use the same argument against religion. "start thinking for yourself, you'll be a better person."


Apologies, but too many pages and not enough time on my part, so if these points were covered... again, apologies.

Blah! That stinks! How can people be deserving of hell if they're good people?

This is going to sound inflamatory but I am just going to come out and say it:

They do not believe in Jesus and as such, is denied eternal life.

nobody is a "good person" that's the whole freaking point of Christianity, we all suck.

That too..

now is that a double standard or just plan hypocrisy?

Both actually.

Well let's see -

Someone thinks I'm shit.

I dislike them for it.


One comes before the other. Reaction - causality. If they don't think I'm shit, I'm cool with them. But regardless of how I feel about them, they ALWAYS think I'm shit. That's the difference.

No double standard. Try your persecution complex somewhere else plz.

so, you get to devalue and hate people based on their beliefs, but if someone else questions yours then you get defensive.

I think I have decided on double standard.

In the eyes of Christianity, those who do not believe in God are essentially sentenced to death. I see it as easy as the fact you would never want to see your friend have to die if there was a chance to save him. It's not being forced upon you, since in the end it's your choice, so the simple advice is to simply consider it and hopefully you change your mind.

In verse 14 through 16, Jesus continues by saying And as Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifed up, so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life. "For God love the word so much that he gave his one and only Son, so tht everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.


This one has always been a favourite. You don't expect Christians to admit to being heretical, so when the text comes right out, and compares faith in Christ to idolatry, it's pretty sweet.

Just to try and clarify things (at least as they appear to me).

The two key points of Christianity lie in the knowledge that nobody is perfect. 'For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God'. There's a grey area with infant deaths but I tend to consider them to get a free pass 'cause they haven't had the chance to sin. Whether you agree or not is up to you.

But NO-ONE is perfect. Some are better than others but there is no-one on this earth who hasn't stolen, lied, hurt other people (except those who haven't had the chance).

And so we fall short.

The scond point...

God sent Jesus down to restore the balance, to provide a means for humans to cleanse their souls and through his preaching, his works, his death and resurrection Jesus allowed EVERYONE the chance to be right with God. But it's nice to recognise what he did. He died a horrible, horrible death in order to give YOU eternal life. He did it by his own choice, he had his chances to throw away his destiny and he DIDN'T DO IT.

Seems worth trying to be a better person for to me, Heaven, hell? Meh, I got no judgement on them since I've been to neither. I Do know that Jesus died for me and so I try to live for him and teach others of what he did.

Feel free to tear this apart, I'm not a theologian or anything, just a faintly regular 19-year old trying to get by *shrugs*

so, you get to devalue and hate people based on their beliefs, but if someone else questions yours then you get defensive.

I think I have decided on double standard.

And hypcracy too. I mean, he can only devalue but none of us can. So technicly you can call it hypocracy.

Ofcourse, it would be unchristian to devalue something because of belief so we really cannot devalue him for his beliefs.

Basically. If someone were to believe that we were all made of 100% cow feces

Well let's see -

Someone thinks I'm shit.

I dislike them for it.

Sorry Szanth, I just found these funny. :p

so, you get to devalue and hate people based on their beliefs, but if someone else questions yours then you get defensive.

I think I have decided on double standard.

Or you could actually listen to what I'm saying instead of insisting on being some kind of a victim.

If someone punches me, I hit them back. I have not sunk down to their level, because I did not initiate it.

If someone calls me a worthless sack of flesh and sin, then I tend to think the same about them on general principle. Again, I did not initiate these feelings or opinions. I was fine until this guy hit me.


The same goes the other way - if someone considers me to be a really decent person that works really hard and does his best, I'm going to be flattered and compliment them in return, even if they're really dicks, because at the very least I can say they were considerate to me.


So you say I'm a hipocrite for letting someone else's feelings about me affect the way I feel about them. I say you're quite silly.

Sorry Szanth, I just found these funny. :p

I hope so, that was the point. :p Lol

And hypcracy too. I mean, he can only devalue but none of us can. So technicly you can call it hypocracy.

Ofcourse, it would be unchristian to devalue something because of belief so we really cannot devalue him for his beliefs.

well, actually that's a double standard, he would be a hypocrite if he said he didn't do it.

so, you get to devalue and hate people based on their beliefs, but if someone else questions yours then you get defensive.

I think I have decided on double standard.

You're looking at this from the pulpit of "All beliefs are equal." However, this couldn't be farther from the truth.

As an atheist, I don't devalue you because you believe in an afterlife where only people who believe like you do go to heaven. I do, however, feel that the implication that all humans are initially upon birth, or soon after achieving some measure of self-awareness, condemned to hell if they aren't like you in your beliefs to be a little silly. However, I do not devalue you, I devalue your beliefs.

The further implication that in order to help others along in the process of going to heaven, or rather, becoming more like you in their beliefs, one must inform them of their condemnation and ask that they forsake everything they believe in to be, once again, an egregious breach of good will and downright fricking rude!

This is going to sound inflamatory but I am just going to come out and say it:

They do not believe in Jesus and as such, is denied eternal life.

Inflame away. According to the Hebrew scripture about the same god, there is no 'eternal life', except for a tiny few who are made like gods. If Christians can accept that their religion adds the whole 'salvation' mythology to an older religion, it behooves the non-believer to accept that those same Christians might also believe that 'afterlife' to be exclusive to them.

Maybe also worth pointing out - the 'no way to heaven except through him' text can also be read as 'because of him'. An argument can be made that faith isn't necessary, because we don't HAVE to get to heaven 'through' anyone... we are all]/i] bought into heaven [i]because of Jesus' vicarious substitution.

so, you get to devalue and hate people based on their beliefs, but if someone else questions yours then you get defensive.

I think I have decided on double standard.
Maybe I'm missing something, but that's not what I was reading from Szanth.

There are people who believe, without ever even having met me, that I deserve to be tortured for all of eternity because I don't believe in their God.

Personally, I feel quite justified in my impression that such people are assholes. Wishing torture upon your fellow human beings is one of those deal-breaker kind of "beliefs."

Kind of like somebody who believes little children should be beaten bloody whenever Daddy feels mad. You're goddam right I despise cowards who hold such "beliefs." But the thing is, I still don't believe that such people deserve to be tortured for all eternity. I believe they're jerks, and they hold some fucked up and hateful beliefs, and many of them are borderline psychopaths, but I'm not going to gleefully thank Gawd for burning them in Hell forever and ever.

Meanwhile, there are Christians who believe I deserve eternal torture for no reason other than my lack of Christian faith.

You'll forgive me for laughing my ass off at anybody who tries to compare my disapproval of bigotry to the mindset of people who think eternal torture is an appropriate penalty for being non-Christian. That's comparing a squirt gun to a nuclear warhead.

well, actually that's a double standard, he would be a hypocrite if he said he didn't do it.

Crap. You are right! Alwell. Goes to show I am human.

*goes off to pack for a summer at a Christian Camp*

You're looking at this from the pulpit of "All beliefs are equal." However, this couldn't be farther from the truth.

As an atheist, I don't devalue you because you believe in an afterlife where only people who believe like you do go to heaven. I do, however, feel that the implication that all humans are initially upon birth, or soon after achieving some measure of self-awareness, condemned to hell if they aren't like you in your beliefs to be a little silly. However, I do not devalue you, I devalue your beliefs.

The further implication that in order to help others along in the process of going to heaven, or rather, becoming more like you in their beliefs, one must inform them of their condemnation and ask that they forsake everything they believe in to be, once again, an egregious breach of good will and downright fricking rude!

I deserve hell, I believe everyone does, I think we all suck, me inclusive.

I don't understand what the problem is. I don't think you suck more than I do, I think we all suck.

I deserve hell, I believe everyone does, I think we all suck, me inclusive.

I don't understand what the problem is. I don't think you suck more than I do, I think we all suck.
Forgive me, but are you being serious about this, Smunk?

In the eyes of Christianity, those who do not believe in God are essentially sentenced to death. I see it as easy as the fact you would never want to see your friend have to die if there was a chance to save him. It's not being forced upon you, since in the end it's your choice, so the simple advice is to simply consider it and hopefully you change your mind.

On the other hand... if you spend your whole life serving and preaching a god that turns out to be false, your life was a lie, and was wasted.

It is the duty of the non-believer, then - to help you avoid wasting your life over a pretend god. I hope you consider it, and hopefully change your mind.

I only say this because I care.

And hypcracy too. I mean, he can only devalue but none of us can. So technicly you can call it hypocracy.

Ofcourse, it would be unchristian to devalue something because of belief so we really cannot devalue him for his beliefs.

*shrugs* You can think less of me for any given reason, up to and including disliking me for wishing bad things to happen to bad people.

I'm not 'devaluing' anyone because of what they think of me - it's how they think of me in that negative way that irks me. If someone calls me something I believe I'm not, I get angry, because not only are they insulting my character, but they're saying I'm a liar because I say I'm not something they think I am.

Think of me what you want, but do it based on who I actually am, rather than something you read from a book I don't agree with. Otherwise, I'll think you're silly and aren't worth the effort to TRY and ignore.

It would seem that it took this thread 5 pages to begin to break down, I must say I am impressed it lasted this long.

Smunkeeville, I do respect your opinion, but did not the Book of Job, Yahweh claimed Job to be "blameless" before his eyes, and that comment prompted Satan to test Job by making him suffer. I say this because in that book of the Jewish TaNaK, or the "Old Testiment", Job was called by God to be sinless. How can it be that we all suck, except for Jesus, and yet Job was also called Blameless?

For clarification, I am not attempting to attack your beliefs. I am simply trying to understand how you can hold that idea, yet in another book in the bible, it shows that, we do not all suck.

As for original sin, all I have to say is "Then Peter said to him, "You have been explaining every topic to us; tell us one other thing. What is the sin of the world? The Savior replied, "There is no such thing as sin, rather you yourselves are what produces sin when you act in accordance with your nature of adultry, which is called 'sin'. For this reason, the Good came among you, persuing (the good) which belongs to every nature. It will set it within its root." Gospel of Mary of Magdala Chapter 3

I deserve hell, I believe everyone does, I think we all suck, me inclusive.

I don't understand what the problem is. I don't think you suck more than I do, I think we all suck.

And I believe you can only speak for yourself.

*shrugs* You can think less of me for any given reason, up to and including disliking me for wishing bad things to happen to bad people.

I'm not 'devaluing' anyone because of what they think of me - it's how they think of me in that negative way that irks me. If someone calls me something I believe I'm not, I get angry, because not only are they insulting my character, but they're saying I'm a liar because I say I'm not something they think I am.

Think of me what you want, but do it based on who I actually am, rather than something you read from a book I don't agree with. Otherwise, I'll think you're silly and aren't worth the effort to TRY and ignore.

I hope however that you do not think this of me.

Maybe I'm missing something, but that's not what I was reading from Szanth.

There are people who believe, without ever even having met me, that I deserve to be tortured for all of eternity because I don't believe in their God.

Personally, I feel quite justified in my impression that such people are assholes. Wishing torture upon your fellow human beings is one of those deal-breaker kind of "beliefs."

Kind of like somebody who believes little children should be beaten bloody whenever Daddy feels mad. You're goddam right I despise cowards who hold such "beliefs." But the thing is, I still don't believe that such people deserve to be tortured for all eternity. I believe they're jerks, and they hold some fucked up and hateful beliefs, and many of them are borderline psychopaths, but I'm not going to gleefully thank Gawd for burning them in Hell forever and ever.

Meanwhile, there are Christians who believe I deserve eternal torture for no reason other than my lack of Christian faith.

You'll forgive me for laughing my ass off at anybody who tries to compare my disapproval of bigotry to the mindset of people who think eternal torture is an appropriate penalty for being non-Christian. That's comparing a squirt gun to a nuclear warhead.
I think you have a persecution complex, either that or you are intentionally misrepresenting basic Christianity.

I deserve hell, I believe everyone does, I think we all suck, me inclusive.

I don't understand what the problem is. I don't think you suck more than I do, I think we all suck.

I don't deserve hell. That's the problem with organised religion, for me - I'm only going to be interested in the snake oil if you convince me I'm sick, first.

I don't see how being created by an immortal (and allegedly perfect) being, without my input, and not at my request... automatically makes me so flawed I deserve eternal torment. It's not logical, it's counter-intuitive... so I'm not buying it.

I think you have a persecution complex, either that or you are intentionally misrepresenting basic Christianity.
I'm not talking about "basic Christianity" (whatever that is).

I'm specifically talking about those Christians who assert that non-Christians are all going to be burned in Hell, and who specifically define Hell as a dimension of eternal torture.

It would seem that it took this thread 5 pages to begin to break down, I must say I am impressed it lasted this long.

Smunkeeville, I do respect your opinion, but did not the Book of Job, Yahweh claimed Job to be "blameless" before his eyes, and that comment prompted Satan to test Job by making him suffer. I say this because in that book of the Jewish TaNaK, or the "Old Testiment", Job was called by God to be sinless. How can it be that we all suck, except for Jesus, and yet Job was also called Blameless?

For clarification, I am not attempting to attack your beliefs. I am simply trying to understand how you can hold that idea, yet in another book in the bible, it shows that, we do not all suck.

As for original sin, all I have to say is "Then Peter said to him, "You have been explaining every topic to us; tell us one other thing. What is the sin of the world? The Savior replied, "There is no such thing as sin, rather you yourselves are what produces sin when you act in accordance with your nature of adultry, which is called 'sin'. For this reason, the Good came among you, persuing (the good) which belongs to every nature. It will set it within its root." Gospel of Mary of Magdala Chapter 3

Heavy bonus points for reading the Gospel of Mary.

It would seem that it took this thread 5 pages to begin to break down, I must say I am impressed it lasted this long.

Smunkeeville, I do respect your opinion, but did not the Book of Job, Yahweh claimed Job to be "blameless" before his eyes, and that comment prompted Satan to test Job by making him suffer. I say this because in that book of the Jewish TaNaK, or the "Old Testiment", Job was called by God to be sinless. How can it be that we all suck, except for Jesus, and yet Job was also called Blameless?

For clarification, I am not attempting to attack your beliefs. I am simply trying to understand how you can hold that idea, yet in another book in the bible, it shows that, we do not all suck.

As for original sin, all I have to say is "Then Peter said to him, "You have been explaining every topic to us; tell us one other thing. What is the sin of the world? The Savior replied, "There is no such thing as sin, rather you yourselves are what produces sin when you act in accordance with your nature of adultry, which is called 'sin'. For this reason, the Good came among you, persuing (the good) which belongs to every nature. It will set it within its root." Gospel of Mary of Magdala Chapter 3

Noah, also was 'perfect in his generation'... although it can be argued to mean he had good genes.

P.S.

I think Athiesm is a belief system that is very similiar to a religion. Its a religion with no God :eek:

It must be explained here why this thought is logically and factually incorrect. To put it concisely, and at the foundation of the situation at hand, it is impossible to have a positive or, shall we say, doctrinal or tangible belief system based on what, depending on perspective of the atheist in question, is a negative or neutral thought process. Atheism is not rooted in simply opposing religion and the conceptual deity, but is the recognition by an individual of the operating mechanics of the world and universe, and the realization inherent to that understanding that there can be no god or higher spiritual consciousness as prescribed by any current religious doctrine. Therefore, atheism is what you might call, the starting point, or ground level with reality. Everyone is born atheist, religion survives purely as a symptom of poor education, and because as with any social conditioning tool, and specifically because the source of this conditioning is the parent, it is forced upon the developing minds of children, thereby hardwiring, so to speak, itself into people. Religion is a superfluous entity created by men of material to manipulate and control men not of material. A brief example of this is the fact that genesis establishes the property rights of man, and in, in moses' fable, tries to proclaim through the commandments that theft can possibly have anything to do with morality, or the goodness of men. I pose this question, what interest could a god, as many recognize "Him", possibly have in protecting the property of people have it from people who don't, when his kingdom is supposed to be purely of the mind and heart? In addition, why set up this rule system with regard to property, then later on proclaim that the very people meant to inherit the earth and all of its property, and held with utmost regard, are in fact the people who have no property worth noting, meaning the "meager and meek"? There was no better method of control ever invented than convincing the teeming masses that "God shall give them justice". Religion, specifically organized, does nothing more than guarantee the survivability of this concept and organism of control. Atheism, in no way shape or form, serves any of these purposes, and therefore, cannot logically be tainted with such a title.

Inflame away. According to the Hebrew scripture about the same god, there is no 'eternal life', except for a tiny few who are made like gods. If Christians can accept that their religion adds the whole 'salvation' mythology to an older religion, it behooves the non-believer to accept that those same Christians might also believe that 'afterlife' to be exclusive to them.

Or I can revert to what Jesus said that he is the fulfillment of the law. I am not denying the fact that the Christian faith broke away from the Jewish faith. That is a known historical fact. Just like all the other schisms that has taken place throughout history.

Maybe also worth pointing out - the 'no way to heaven except through him' text can also be read as 'because of him'. An argument can be made that faith isn't necessary, because we don't HAVE to get to heaven 'through' anyone... we are all]/i] bought into heaven [i]because of Jesus' vicarious substitution.

One can make that argument except for the fact that John 3:16 states that that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Forgive me, but are you being serious about this, Smunk?
serious? yeah. I think we all suck, every single one of us is imperfect, every single one of us sins, every single one of us has at some time made a bad choice.

it's an either/or thing, either you are perfect or you are not.

we are not.

getting back to the first post of this thread.....

Asking someone to think about it or consider it will be said and used by Christians for many different subjects and is sometimes used towards the end of the discussion. The reason probably being, that maybe, just maybe, another soul has been saved.

You'll forgive me for laughing my ass off at anybody who tries to compare my disapproval of bigotry to the mindset of people who think eternal torture is an appropriate penalty for being non-Christian. That's comparing a squirt gun to a nuclear warhead.

Dear, you have to stop. You're entirely too siggable.

Heavy bonus points for reading the Gospel of Mary.

I have read all 48 gospels ;) Hince the reason I no longer believe in the psot nicean version of christainity, and claim to be of the Gnostic Traditions. The Gospel of Judas, is particurally interesting.

To go back go the opening question:

I think that, if you're discussing religion, and if you disagree with someone, then you should try to convince them that you are right. To do anything else would be a pretty poor way to talk to a fellow human being. You might as well be two people talking at walls if you're not trying to speak to the other and get your beliefs across.

For example, if I thought that ice giants were going to arise and ransack the earth, and I happened to get into a conversation about the end of the world, I should say what I think. But it wouldn't be an honest dialogue if I didn't try to get across the reasons and persuade the other person.

However, it wouldn't be very wise to go around shouting at people that they were going to be ransacked by ice giants, or even starting conversations about it, because it is unlikely to be helpful to anyone.

If someone punches me, I hit them back. I have not sunk down to their level, because I did not initiate it. err... you do realise that this sounds alot like the childish argument "but he started it"

If someone calls me a worthless sack of flesh and sin, then I tend to think the same about them on general principle. Again, I did not initiate these feelings or opinions. I was fine until this guy hit me. To be honest, I've never heard any christian referre to anyone as "a worthless sack of flesh." a sinner yes. but as smunkee pointed out, we all (Christians, Atheists, whomever) sin.

The same goes the other way - if someone considers me to be a really decent person that works really hard and does his best, I'm going to be flattered and compliment them in return, even if they're really dicks, because at the very least I can say they were considerate to me. funny, it's always a responsive nature. ever tried this? if some religous person calls you a worthless sack of sin and flesh. you respond with.
"why thank you. I find it's nice to know how others percive me. Thanks for your effort in uplifting my spirit and hope others will return your effort." then walk away.

I'm not talking about "basic Christianity" (whatever that is).

I'm specifically talking about those Christians who assert that non-Christians are all going to be burned in Hell, and who specifically define Hell as a dimension of eternal torture.

those?

I am not one of those. I don't go with the whole fire and brimstone thing.

serious? yeah. I think we all suck, every single one of us is imperfect, every single one of us sins, every single one of us has at some time made a bad choice.

it's an either/or thing, either you are perfect or you are not.

we are not.
Sorry, this just doesn't sound like the Smunk I'm used to dealing with.

Imperfect = "we all suck"?

Sometimes making mistakes = "we all suck"?

Being short of perfection = deserving of Hell?

And you really think it's okay to say your fellow humans deserve Hell, simply because you also insult yourself along with them?

Honestly, I'm completely thrown right now. This stuff you're saying is so hateful and degrading. It doesn't gel at all with my impression of you. I guess I must have radically misunderstood you in previous discussions or something. :(

Noah, also was 'perfect in his generation'... although it can be argued to mean he had good genes.

Very true, I almost forgot about Noah. Thank you :)

*shrugs* You can think less of me for any given reason, up to and including disliking me for wishing bad things to happen to bad people.

It would be a sin if I did.

those?

I am not one of those. I don't go with the whole fire and brimstone thing.
And now you're demonstrating a failure to have even read my posts in the first place...

I spelled out exactly who I was talking about in my original post, which you quoted and responded to.

This is weird.

Or I can revert to what Jesus said that he is the fulfillment of the law. I am not denying the fact that the Christian faith broke away from the Jewish faith. That is a known historical fact. Just like all the other schisms that has taken place throughout history.


Revert away. I'm not sure what you think you gain from it, though. The 'law' doesn't define god, nor does it claim to change what was previously ordained. Indeed - if it did, no one who had any familiarity with Hebrew scripture would have looked twice at Jesus, because the Hebrew scripture makes specific point of detailing that anyone who tried to change the basic law is apostate and an idolator.


One can make that argument except for the fact that John 3:16 states that that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

And? We could debate the fact that you are discussing words said by John... and that it is centuries of misinterpretation that leads us to put 'red letters' on that segment.

But we don't need to - it doesn't say (in this verse) what happens to those who do not believe on Jesus.

Sorry, this just doesn't sound like the Smunk I'm used to dealing with.

Imperfect = "we all suck"?

Sometimes making mistakes = "we all suck"?

Being short of perfection = deserving of Hell?

And you really think it's okay to say your fellow humans deserve Hell, simply because you also insult yourself along with them?

Honestly, I'm completely thrown right now. This stuff you're saying is so hateful and degrading. It doesn't gel at all with my impression of you. I guess I must have radically misunderstood you in previous discussions or something. :(
I am in a pretty bad mood today..........I think I need chocolate and a nap. ;)

err... you do realise that this sounds alot like the childish argument "but he started it"

To be honest, I've never heard any christian referre to anyone as "a worthless sack of flesh." a sinner yes. but as smunkee pointed out, we all (Christians, Atheists, whomever) sin.

funny, it's always a responsive nature. ever tried this? if some religous person calls you a worthless sack of sin and flesh. you respond with.
"why thank you. I find it's nice to know how others percive me. Thanks for your effort in uplifting my spirit and hope others will return your effort." then walk away.

Your approach to the situation, is quite remarkable. That is a great way to handle it.

I had a discussion with a young Christian, a kid who identified himself/herself as a Baptist

How unfortunate.


Why is it that when an atheist says they don't believe or cannot accept those two figures, some Christians ask you to think about and consider it?

Because they wan't you to be christian. Because they think you havn't fully understood and think you are wrong, and assume that if you think about it further you'll understand.


Or they tell you that you're not going to hell if you believe in God?

Because that is what they believe.


Or seem to think that religion makes you a better person?


Because that is what they believe.

Are you sure this isn't baiting?

I think, that all this stems from the old adage "Your ethics stems from your theory of the world". Deep down religious people are distrustful of "Athieist"
because they feel there is no foundation for there Ideas and they are out of control with there conjectures, as opposed to there time honored beliefs.

The arguement becomes does Saved=Ethical, I doubt it. but wether you use savved/individuation/ whatever you use, your individual journey will cause reflection and contemplation of your actionsm and that can't be all bad.

I am not a christian , Because i believe people a born empty vessels, They extend out from the center where life meets matter. They are filled with choices where as the "Soul" is created.

I'm not an atheist, My Consciousness has not yet reached its furthest extent,
so I show respect to that "Ultimate, Unrealised" in the open secluded places. Giving no name, but allowing my inner self to reflect on that Ultimate moment.

serious? yeah. I think we all suck, every single one of us is imperfect, every single one of us sins, every single one of us has at some time made a bad choice.

it's an either/or thing, either you are perfect or you are not.

we are not.

Which assumes that there are only two options. I can eat a perfect apple. I can throw away a spoiled one. But there are 98% of the other apples that are somewhere between. They neither 'deserve' to be eaten, nor discarded... they are just... apples. I can make judgement calls about whether I want to eat them, based on my own criteria, but it says nothing empirical about their 'goodness' or 'appleness'.

Very true, I almost forgot about Noah. Thank you :)

Most welcome. I knew reading that book would help me, one day. :D

I hope however that you do not think this of me.

Negative. You're cool.

It would be a sin if I did.

Oh but accusing me of just being a general sinner is just fine. Okay.

err... you do realise that this sounds alot like the childish argument "but he started it"



There's nothing childish about it. I dislike the idea that considers retaliation to be akin to instigation and damns both the attacker and the defender. Maybe this is one of those fundamental things we're just disagreeing on.



To be honest, I've never heard any christian referre to anyone as "a worthless sack of flesh." a sinner yes. but as smunkee pointed out, we all (Christians, Atheists, whomever) sin.

If you say I'm a sinner bound for hell, then what am I other than a worthless sack of flesh, waiting to be judged?

funny, it's always a responsive nature. ever tried this? if some religous person calls you a worthless sack of sin and flesh. you respond with.
"why thank you. I find it's nice to know how others percive me. Thanks for your effort in uplifting my spirit and hope others will return your effort." then walk away.

No, I haven't tried that, because I don't thank people for insulting me. It does not uplift my spirit, and in fact, infuriates me.

Smunkeeville, I do respect your opinion, but did not the Book of Job, Yahweh claimed Job to be "blameless" before his eyes, and that comment prompted Satan to test Job by making him suffer. I say this because in that book of the Jewish TaNaK, or the "Old Testiment", Job was called by God to be sinless. How can it be that we all suck, except for Jesus, and yet Job was also called Blameless?blameless does not mean Sinless. Job was a pious man, He prayed daily and also offered sacrifices according to scripture and thus atoned for the sins that he committed. thus it's not that he didn't sin (Perfect), but God forgave his sins (Blameless.)

I am in a pretty bad mood today..........I think I need chocolate and a nap. ;)

Hugs for Smunkee. We love you smunkee (the agape version, obviously... not wanting a fight) :D

I had a particularly bad day yesterday, and so probably seemed to be a complete asshat in most of the stuff I posted. The shame is, when I do it - no one notices a difference. :(

blameless does not mean Sinless. Job was a pious man, He prayed daily and also offered sacrifices according to scripture and thus atoned for the sins that he committed. thus it's not that he didn't sin (Perfect), but God forgave his sins (Blameless.)

Let me ask you then, since I gave my answer earlier to what sin is, what is sin to you? Accordig to the book of Job, God told Satan, that Job was blameless and shuned evil. Now sin is classically described as an act counter to the will of God. If God says you are blameless and you shun evil (which is supposed to be counter to the will of God, which Job clearly is not) then how can you consider Job to have commited sin?

err... you do realise that this sounds alot like the childish argument "but he started it"

Sounds to me like the Golden Rule.

We're supposed to treat others as we would like to be treated, right? So if somebody is an asshole to me, I assume that is the manner of relating that they find most comfortable.

I am fortunate enough to be fluent in Assholese. If somebody would like to converse in that dialect, I am more than willing to accomodate them. :D


To be honest, I've never heard any christian referre to anyone as "a worthless sack of flesh." a sinner yes. but as smunkee pointed out, we all (Christians, Atheists, whomever) sin.

Smunk has been saying we all suck. That's quite a bit stronger than saying we all sin.

Yep, I'm imperfect. But do I "suck"? Of course not. I'm a pretty good person, all around, I'm just a work in progress who sometimes messes up. I don't suck. I don't deserve Hell. I'm not a poor wretched sinner who can only be saved if some merciful Gawd takes pity on my lowly, unworthy self. I'm a person who is able to grasp the difference between the sin of Pride and simple human dignity.


funny, it's always a responsive nature. ever tried this? if some religous person calls you a worthless sack of sin and flesh. you respond with.
"why thank you. I find it's nice to know how others percive me. Thanks for your effort in uplifting my spirit and hope others will return your effort." then walk away.
That would piss them off, most likely. So you're saying that it's okay to piss off such people, as long as you are oblique about it? How is this different from simply calling them an asshole?

Most of them seem to get a certain smug satisfaction out of being called an asshole. They know they're being assholes, so that's exactly the reaction they're going for. Which means that my method (calling them an asshole) actually makes two people feel better: me, because I got to call them an asshole, and them, because they get to feel smug. I think my method is much more Christian, because I'm thinking of their feelings too!

Revert away. I'm not sure what you think you gain from it, though. The 'law' doesn't define god, nor does it claim to change what was previously ordained. Indeed - if it did, no one who had any familiarity with Hebrew scripture would have looked twice at Jesus, because the Hebrew scripture makes specific point of detailing that anyone who tried to change the basic law is apostate and an idolator.

You are correct. That was why Jesus was put to death by the Religious Leaders. He claimed to be the Son of God. Back in those days, one was put to death for such a comment.

And? We could debate the fact that you are discussing words said by John... and that it is centuries of misinterpretation that leads us to put 'red letters' on that segment.

John did not say what I just quoted. And how does one know it is being misterpreted? A person can read the Bible several times and gain several different interpretations of it. Not even bible scholars agree on interpretation. That is why when one reads the bible, they themselves have to ask questions about what they are reading and contemplate what they are reading. Every time I read a passage that could mean anything, I pray about to the Lord about it to gain understanding.

But we don't need to - it doesn't say (in this verse) what happens to those who do not believe on Jesus.

You are right that it does not.

Your approach to the situation, is quite remarkable. That is a great way to handle it.

alot of people don't realize (and yes, I'm including Christians in this) how hurtful words can be. they can discourage people from reaching their potential, they can cause people to lose self-esteem and even do things they wouldn't normally do.

We're all in this life together, so why can't we just try to be encouraging while examining our differences.

Guess I'm just a fanciful thinker... (grave will probably agree with this.) :p

Oh but accusing me of just being a general sinner is just fine. Okay.

That is because we are all sinners. Me included.

Hugs for Smunkee. We love you smunkee (the agape version, obviously... not wanting a fight) :D
hey, I will take agape love any day, it's the best kind, not all finicky like that darn philadelphia

I had a particularly bad day yesterday, and so probably seemed to be a complete asshat in most of the stuff I posted. The shame is, when I do it - no one notices a difference. :(
meh, they hate me one way or the other.........(not Bottle, I think she might actually kinda not hate me mostly)

That is because we are all sinners. Me included.

If this is t rue, what about Noah, pre-flood, when God called him blameless, or Job. Again either these books of the old testiment are wrong, or it is possible that not all of us are sinners. Again sin is not something that you inherit, it is something that you create out of your nature of adultry.

not Bottle, I think she might actually kinda not hate me mostly

Bottle most definitely does not hate you!

Bottle is sorry to hear you are having a lousy day, but is relieved because this explains why you were sounding so different. Bottle was becoming very confused for a while there.

I have days where I feel humanity sucks. Indeed, I have been forced to stop watching the nightly news specifically because I would end every day feeling like my species is a blight upon the face of the planet. I can relate to these feelings.

Don't feel like going through all the posts so sorry if this has already been said.

The protestant believing in God and being born again actually comes in a package with being good. It's hypocritical to say you're a christian and at the same time do evil without a doubt. Someone who has truly been born again simply can't honestly not try to better themselves.

That's how I see it.

John did not say what I just quoted. And how does one know it is being misterpreted? A person can read the Bible several times and gain several different interpretations of it. Not even bible scholars agree on interpretation. That is why when one reads the bible, they themselves have to ask questions about what they are reading and contemplate what they are reading. Every time I read a passage that could mean anything, I pray about to the Lord about it to gain understanding.


While this is a very Jesus-y way to approach the text (after all - he was heavily against literal interpretation... an obedience to the LETTER of the law, and disobedience to the SPIRIT of the law).. and he did preach discernment... the problem is that discernment makes the Bible irrelevent.

If I can read one verse - pray and get one answer.. and you can read a verse, pray and get a conflicting answer - the text is wrong, the discernment is wrong... or discernment just can't be used to evaluate a text.

Personally, I think truth can be found in a lot of places. I think that an interventionist god can give me as much truth through the lyrics of a Metallica song, as he could through any amount of 'scripture'. That's because discernment is a direct relationship, not a learned response.

As such, quoting bible verses is something I find illogical, because it suggests that the truth is somehow more between the pages of a book, than between 'god' and his creation.

Why is it that when an atheist says they don't believe or cannot accept those two figures, some Christians ask you to think about and consider it? Or they tell you that you're not going to hell if you believe in God? Or seem to think that religion makes you a better person?

I'm not looking to start a flame war; I'm just curious as to why.

Thanks NSG. :)

I find that I get more of a "you have to have faith" response. Why I should just "believe" because they tell me too is beyond me though.

I don't understand when people get offended if they say you're going to hell. I don't get offended, because a) it implies nothing about my personality, as good people can go to hell (depending on what you believe) and b) If it doesn't exist why give a shit? I mean seriously, who are you kidding, you don't care when people say "you're going to burn for your sins", it's just sneaky way to attack their beliefs by pretending to be offend (i've done it before).

That is because we are all sinners. Me included.

Again, speak for yourself.

hey, I will take agape love any day, it's the best kind, not all finicky like that darn philadelphia


meh, they hate me one way or the other.........(not Bottle, I think she might actually kinda not hate me mostly)


-_- Seems like every other thread we talk to eachother in, I end up having to constantly tell you I don't hate you and do, in fact, respect you as a person.

I don't understand when people get offended if they say you're going to hell. I don't get offended, because a) it implies nothing about my personality, as good people can go to hell (depending on what you believe) and b) If it doesn't exist why give a shit? I mean seriously, who are you kidding, you don't care when people say "you're going to burn for your sins", it's just sneaky way to attack their beliefs by pretending to be offend (i've done it before).

Maybe you should actually read the thread?

I am a christian, but I believe that everyone goes to heaven so long as they lead a peaceful life. The only religions that will get you in trouble are the ones that encourage sinful behavior. If you don't believe in Jesus, perhaps you've found him in your own personal philosophy, or through the will of Alah, or the teachings of Buddha. That's what i think.

I don't understand when people get offended if they say you're going to hell. I don't get offended, because a) it implies nothing about my personality, as good people can go to hell (depending on what you believe) and b) If it doesn't exist why give a shit? I mean seriously, who are you kidding, you don't care when people say "you're going to burn for your sins", it's just sneaky way to attack their beliefs by pretending to be offend (i've done it before).
It is a mistake for you to assume that everybody feels/thinks the way you do.

I am offended when a person tells me they believe I deserve eternal torture.

I'm offended if a person tells me they believe I deserve to be murdered violently, after all, and ETERNAL TORTURE is much worse than that. So why shouldn't I be offended when somebody tells me they worship a God who will burn me in Hell?

It's the thought that counts. I don't personally believe in Hell, so the actual literal threat of Hell doesn't concern me. But the insult is there. And there also is the additional concern about what such a person might do to me. Somebody who devalues other human beings so much that they believe we DESERVE to be tortured endlessly...well, let's just say I don't place much trust in that person's kindness or empathy.

alot of people don't realize (and yes, I'm including Christians in this) how hurtful words can be. they can discourage people from reaching their potential, they can cause people to lose self-esteem and even do things they wouldn't normally do.

We're all in this life together, so why can't we just try to be encouraging while examining our differences.

Guess I'm just a fanciful thinker... (grave will probably agree with this.) :p

Sure, you're good people, I'm willing to agree with anything you think I should.. :D

But, in earnest, I think you are what Christians should be. Jesus makes a couple of very special efforts to talk to us - he preaches to us from a mount (up or down, to the crowd or from.. the texts differ), and he codifies the 'important' law... and it basically comes down to 'do good shit' and 'let's try to get along'. Anything else is quibbling the fineprint.

There's nothing childish about it. I dislike the idea that considers retaliation to be akin to instigation and damns both the attacker and the defender. Maybe this is one of those fundamental things we're just disagreeing on.... What's that phrase... an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

you retaliate, They retaliate to your retaliation, it becomes an endless cycle. why get sucked into that?

If you say I'm a sinner bound for hell, then what am I other than a worthless sack of flesh, waiting to be judged?What are you? you are like me. a person who sins and will be judged on that day.

No, I haven't tried that, because I don't thank people for insulting me. It does not uplift my spirit, and in fact, infuriates me.and that's what you have to get across those... idiots who insult you. that they are NOT following the Great Commission. spreading the word and gaining followers. ;)

Let me ask you then, since I gave my answer earlier to what sin is, what is sin to you? Accordig to the book of Job, God told Satan, that Job was blameless and shuned evil. Now sin is classically described as an act counter to the will of God. If God says you are blameless and you shun evil (which is supposed to be counter to the will of God, which Job clearly is not) then how can you consider Job to have commited sin?to me? sin is anything I do that is contrary to what God wants me to do. it's a failure by me to be the best me" I could be.

because Job is human. again, Shunning evil doesn't just mean doesn't commit evil but also repents the evil he's done. the sacrifices that Job does was also for atonement for his sins. by doing that, he's also "shunning evil". if he didn't repent and ask for forgiveness, then he would be accepting the evil he did and thus not shunning evil.

Blameless =|= perfect.

If this is t rue, what about Noah, pre-flood, when God called him blameless, or Job. Again either these books of the old testiment are wrong, or it is possible that not all of us are sinners. Again sin is not something that you inherit, it is something that you create out of your nature of adultry.

blameless is not sinless.

for example, if I accidentally hit someone with my car, it would be an accident, not intentional, hence I would (probably) not be charged with first degree murder, meaning I (probably) wouldn't be convicted of murder, even though I killed someone.

that analogy doesn't extend far though.....so don't stretch it.

Job sacrificed to God for forgiveness of sins.

That's all Christians have, is forgiveness, we are not sinless, we are blameless before the Lord.

If this is t rue, what about Noah, pre-flood, when God called him blameless, or Job. Again either these books of the old testiment are wrong, or it is possible that not all of us are sinners.

I believe JuNii answered it better than I could. Just because someone finds you blameless does not mean that you are sinless. To be sinless, one has to be perfect. Since none of us are perfect, we are not sinless.

Noah and Job were both righteous men. That goes along way. Were they sinless? I do not believe so. According to my Bible that I have opened, Job 1 vers 1 says that He was blameless-a man of complete integrity He feared God and stayed away from evil

Remember something. We only have what is written. We do not know them personally. One can interpret this to mean that he was sinless but was he truly? That is up to interpretation.

Slightly off-topic: what is the deal with Job? I read it again recently, and it seemed like a black comedy about the randomness of suffering. In fact, it seemed like a very good argument against the existence of god.

While this is a very Jesus-y way to approach the text (after all - he was heavily against literal interpretation... an obedience to the LETTER of the law, and disobedience to the SPIRIT of the law).. and he did preach discernment... the problem is that discernment makes the Bible irrelevent.

I can probably agree with you there.

If I can read one verse - pray and get one answer.. and you can read a verse, pray and get a conflicting answer - the text is wrong, the discernment is wrong... or discernment just can't be used to evaluate a text.

That is why I pray constently.

Personally, I think truth can be found in a lot of places. I think that an interventionist god can give me as much truth through the lyrics of a Metallica song, as he could through any amount of 'scripture'. That's because discernment is a direct relationship, not a learned response.

God works in mysterious ways. :D

As such, quoting bible verses is something I find illogical, because it suggests that the truth is somehow more between the pages of a book, than between 'god' and his creation.

I agree but it is the words in the Good Book that can help others come to terms with Salvation. That is, of course, my opinion and I know it is not shared by others.

hey, I will take agape love any day, it's the best kind, not all finicky like that darn philadelphia


:D Poor philadelphia. No one likes Philadelphia.


meh, they hate me one way or the other.........(not Bottle, I think she might actually kinda not hate me mostly)

I'm not sure it's true. I think you've got some people who really appreciate your presence - and I think you are right - I think Bottle mostly errs on the side of not hating Smunkee. Obviously there ARE some who are anti-smunkee just because of some things you believe, but I think they are a minority. I might not agree with some things (many things? I don't know) you say, but I certainly respect you... if for no other reason than I think you are generally a force for good in a bad world.

Well I don't know who's still looking for help with this subject, but I'll post my thoughts anyway. Christians are simply trying to get you to understand them, because they can not understand your choice to be an atheist. It would be like telling somebody you don't like ice cream- if they love ice cream they won't understand your distaste for it.
I've personally had to deal with this ever since I stopped going to church when I was nine. I decided that I disagreed with the organization of religion, not because I didn't believe in a Divine presence, but simply because the organization of a religion presents so many opportunities for exploitation and problems. Ever since I left church (I live in a very Christian community about 50/50 Catholics/Protestants) people have been telling me that I will go to Hell. My response is always simple, if all I need to go to Heaven are faith and good works, why will not going to church make me go to Hell? I realized that when I went to church, I was listening to another man, who has no more of a connection to a Divine presence than I do, tell me about God. I've come to believe that if the human race was created by a Divine spirit, I have just as much a connection to this spirit as any other man on Earth, and I don't need a man who has been recognized by others to lead me to 'salvation'.

Again, speak for yourself.

Oh I am. We are all sinners.

It is a mistake for you to assume that everybody feels/thinks the way you do.

I am offended when a person tells me they believe I deserve eternal torture.

I'm offended if a person tells me they believe I deserve to be murdered violently, after all, and ETERNAL TORTURE is much worse than that. So why shouldn't I be offended when somebody tells me they worship a God who will burn me in Hell?


Because as I said, it says nothing about your personality. It doesn't mean anything, it's just another way of saying "you are not a christian". People generally only get offended by things that actually mean anything, like "you're generally a very stupid person" or "you're personality is dreadful" but saying "you're gonna burn in hell" really means "you're not a christian".


It's the thought that counts. I don't personally believe in Hell, so the actual literal threat of Hell doesn't concern me. But the insult is there.

It may be an insult. Calling someone a shit is an insult (imagine how horrible it would be to be made of shit), but that doesn't mean there is anything to be offended by.


And there also is the additional concern about what such a person might do to me. Somebody who devalues other human beings so much that they believe we DESERVE to be tortured endlessly...well, let's just say I don't place much trust in that person's kindness or empathy.

But generally this person would try to follow the christian teachings of love and kindness, and rather you not go to hell. At worst he will try and push his religion down your throat.

Before we continue, the word sin is being arbitrarily thrown around. In a previous post I showed what I used to define the word sin. So we can get a clear understanding, what is sin?

I don't understand when people get offended if they say you're going to hell. I don't get offended, because a) it implies nothing about my personality, as good people can go to hell (depending on what you believe) and b) If it doesn't exist why give a shit? I mean seriously, who are you kidding, you don't care when people say "you're going to burn for your sins", it's just sneaky way to attack their beliefs by pretending to be offend (i've done it before).

Someone saying that you deserve to suffer eternal torture isn't the slightest bit insulting?

For Clarification this is what I use as an understanding of sin. Please tell me what you mean by sin.



Then Peter said to him, "You have been explaining every topic to us; tell us one other thing. What is the sin of the world? The Savior replied, "There is no such thing as sin, rather you yourselves are what produces sin when you act in accordance with your nature of adultry, which is called 'sin'. For this reason, the Good came among you, persuing (the good) which belongs to every nature. It will set it within its root." Gospel of Mary of Magdala Chapter 3

To be honest, I've never heard any christian referre to anyone as "a worthless sack of flesh." a sinner yes. but as smunkee pointed out, we all (Christians, Atheists, whomever) sin.

I have a question, how can one sin if one doesn't believe in the concept of sin, as sin is a religious concept and requires the violation of divine law?

I am a christian, but I believe that everyone goes to heaven so long as they lead a peaceful life. The only religions that will get you in trouble are the ones that encourage sinful behavior. If you don't believe in Jesus, perhaps you've found him in your own personal philosophy, or through the will of Alah, or the teachings of Buddha. That's what i think.

Wow, not only is this a good first post but it's insightful. Nicely done.

I'd like to make a general reply, all this input is actually good. I never really understood until now. It makes more sense. I can't say I necessarily agree but it's been a good chance for me to better understand the reasoning behind why some Christians think that everyone should accept God and Christ.

I know I won't change but I thought I should at least and and figure out why some people think a certain way. It'll make things smoother in general.

Sounds to me like the Golden Rule.

We're supposed to treat others as we would like to be treated, right? So if somebody is an asshole to me, I assume that is the manner of relating that they find most comfortable.

I am fortunate enough to be fluent in Assholese. If somebody would like to converse in that dialect, I am more than willing to accomodate them. :Dthat's right. but treating others also means in the retalitory sense as well. otherwise known as "turning the other cheeck."

Smunk has been saying we all suck. That's quite a bit stronger than saying we all sin.

Yep, I'm imperfect. But do I "suck"? Of course not. I'm a pretty good person, all around, I'm just a work in progress who sometimes messes up. I don't suck. I don't deserve Hell. I'm not a poor wretched sinner who can only be saved if some merciful Gawd takes pity on my lowly, unworthy self. I'm a person who is able to grasp the difference between the sin of Pride and simple human dignity.true, suck is a rather... strong word, but then again, when one isn't in a good mood... one does tend to choose strong words.


That would piss them off, most likely. So you're saying that it's okay to piss off such people, as long as you are oblique about it? How is this different from simply calling them an asshole?

Most of them seem to get a certain smug satisfaction out of being called an asshole. They know they're being assholes, so that's exactly the reaction they're going for. Which means that my method (calling them an asshole) actually makes two people feel better: me, because I got to call them an asshole, and them, because they get to feel smug. I think my method is much more Christian, because I'm thinking of their feelings too!
to each their own. people can get pissed off from any action. even one of pure generosity with an honest heart behind it.

and if they are calling people worthless sacks of flesh and sin... then they either 1) don't care about that person's value or feelings. or 2) not realizing what they are doing.

a polite (and slightly sarcastic) remark can point out their error if it's number 2, and if they're just being assholes (read #1) then they will get pissed no matter what you say.

Sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin) according to wiki.

lol, I know the text book definition, but with all things in life, people take words and meaning and apply it to a personal level. In order to better understand their position, I wish to know What is the definition of sin to them.

Edit : Nice I am psychic now :)

Before we continue, the word sin is being arbitrarily thrown around. In a previous post I showed what I used to define the word sin. So we can get a clear understanding, what is sin?

Sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin) according to wiki.

I agree but it is the words in the Good Book that can help others come to terms with Salvation. That is, of course, my opinion and I know it is not shared by others.

You make it sound like the work of a charlatan, I'm afraid. If it comes down to marketing, there is a problem with the message.

I don't buy the idea that a real and present god NEEDS to be explained away through two thousand years of accumulated buzzwords and tested formulae. I'd go so far as to say that anyone who thinks they are saying anything about the infinite, by referring to a mere book, is missing the point.

And we are back to discernment. If you show someone a passage from Luke that makes them recognise the face of god... it isn't the passage of Luke that DOES it, right?

It is the spirit moving them, when their eyes are open.

By the same token, a Christian can (perhaps better) show someone the good news, by gesturing towards the complex petals on a Rose.

And, either way - if you are hitting off your check points, and find yourself giving a lecture... you aren't talking about god, you are talking about yourself.

Someone saying that you deserve to suffer eternal torture isn't the slightest bit insulting?

Not generally, unless the person believes it for other reasons then simply because I don't worship Jesus.

Slightly off-topic: what is the deal with Job? I read it again recently, and it seemed like a black comedy about the randomness of suffering. In fact, it seemed like a very good argument against the existence of god.

Even though Job, who lost everything, could very well blame God, He did not not do so. We can not blame God for all of our troubles. Satan tested his faith and Satan lost.

We will not always understand why things occur as they occur (and I could list several of them) but we must remember that it is faith in God that will bring us out (if you are a firm believer). We are all quick to blame God for some sort of tragedy but was it really His doing? That is something we all have to ask ourselves.

Even though Job, who lost everything, could very well blame God, He did not not do so. We can not blame God for all of our troubles. Satan tested his faith and Satan lost.

We will not always understand why things occur as they occur (and I could list several of them) but we must remember that it is faith in God that will bring us out (if you are a firm believer). We are all quick to blame God for some sort of tragedy but was it really His doing? That is something we all have to ask ourselves.

How did 'Satan lose'? Testing humans is the satan's job. He was instructed, by god, to test Job. There is no 'winning' or 'losing' in there.

Why is it that when an atheist says they don't believe or cannot accept those two figures, some Christians ask you to think about and consider it? Or they tell you that you're not going to hell if you believe in God? Or seem to think that religion makes you a better person?

I'm not looking to start a flame war; I'm just curious as to why.

Thanks NSG. :)

If your looking for a wordly answer, I don't have one, but I do have a spirtual answer:

Honestly, because we hope and we strongly desire for all people to come unto Christ and liken him into their lives. Regardless if you belive or not it is always possible to come unto Christ and put your faith in him and the Father.
We want all our brothers and sisters to be saved and to come to the Kingdom of Glory. We all feel for each other's salvation and we all know regardless of chosen denomination of Christianity that if you read ponder and prayer, the spirit of the lord can speak to you if you listen and testify to you of God the Father and the Son Jesus Christ.

I have a question, how can one sin if one doesn't believe in the concept of sin, as sin is a religious concept and requires the violation of divine law?
same as one can break the law in ignorance.

the only difference is that the law (sin) you're breaking applies to the religion.

now, as for "sin being a religous construct and applicable only to those who believe"...

I suggest the story of Lazarus.

Well, I know that your an atheist, and probably dont belive in hell but we Christians do. We belive that hell is a horrible place, a land of torture and pain, and we belive that if you dont belive in God, that you will be stuck there for eternity. So when we try to get you to belive in God, were doing it as an act of kindness, and to prevent you from being stuck in hell for all eternity.

I don't buy the idea that a real and present god NEEDS to be explained away through two thousand years of accumulated buzzwords and tested formulae. I'd go so far as to say that anyone who thinks they are saying anything about the infinite, by referring to a mere book, is missing the point.

You are right. That is why there are many different ways to discuss this issue. These include talking about your own personal experiences in what is commonly referred to as testimonials.

And we are back to discernment. If you show someone a passage from Luke that makes them recognise the face of god... it isn't the passage of Luke that DOES it, right?

Right!

It is the spirit moving them, when their eyes are open.

You are correct.

By the same token, a Christian can (perhaps better) show someone the good news, by gesturing towards the complex petals on a Rose.

If God wants someone to do so, then more power to it.

And, either way - if you are hitting off your check points, and find yourself giving a lecture... you aren't talking about god, you are talking about yourself.

I am not using any check points. None.

... What's that phrase... an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

you retaliate, They retaliate to your retaliation, it becomes an endless cycle. why get sucked into that?

What are you? you are like me. a person who sins and will be judged on that day.

and that's what you have to get across those... idiots who insult you. that they are NOT following the Great Commission. spreading the word and gaining followers. ;)


Eye for an eye? I'd rather have the whole world one-eyed rather than allow half the population to become entirely blinded by the other and do nothing about it.

EDIT: Also, I don't believe I will be judged. Even if god exists, I can't accept that he is that way.

Even though Job, who lost everything, could very well blame God, He did not not do so. We can not blame God for all of our troubles. Satan tested his faith and Satan lost.

We will not always understand why things occur as they occur (and I could list several of them) but we must remember that it is faith in God that will bring us out (if you are a firm believer). We are all quick to blame God for some sort of tragedy but was it really His doing? That is something we all have to ask ourselves.

I ask myself that, and the answer I always come up with is yes. Satan cannot lose, because Satan is but an extension of god himself. Satan is a tool, Satan is a follower, Satan is a believer. Satan is, in all likelihood, a christian.

And don't even get me started on the whole "god did everything, it's all his fault" business, because I'm never budging on that, so we might as well not even try.

How did 'Satan lose'? Testing humans is the satan's job. He was instructed, by god, to test Job. There is no 'winning' or 'losing' in there.

Actually there is. If Job failed, then Job loses. Job did not fail therefor, Job won. It may sound circular but it is not. You are right that God allowed Satan to test Job. I should not have said that Satan lost for Satan was not at the center. Job was. I should have said that Job passed the test of faith.

Not generally, unless the person believes it for other reasons then simply because I don't worship Jesus.

Well in this case I suppose its more amusing than anything else. Besides, God is supposed to be forgiving, the idea you'd go to hell so easily rather contradicts this.

Well in this case I suppose its more amusing than anything else. Besides, God is supposed to be forgiving, the idea you'd go to hell so easily rather contradicts this.

Yeah. I feel more confused rather then anything else.

... What's that phrase... an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

you retaliate, They retaliate to your retaliation, it becomes an endless cycle. why get sucked into that?

What are you? you are like me. a person who sins and will be judged on that day.

and that's what you have to get across those... idiots who insult you. that they are NOT following the Great Commission. spreading the word and gaining followers. ;)


Eye for an eye? I'd rather have the whole world one-eyed rather than allow half the population to become entirely blinded by the other and do nothing about it.

But in so doing, there is a phrase called turn the other cheek.

I ask myself that, and the answer I always come up with is yes. Satan cannot lose, because Satan is but an extension of god himself. Satan is a tool, Satan is a follower, Satan is a believer. Satan is, in all likelihood, a christian.

I do not believe you. I could ask you to prove all of what you said but I am not going to. The reason being is that it does not truly matter. No one here is going to convince. All we are doing is stating our povs.

And don't even get me started on the whole "god did everything, it's all his fault" business, because I'm never budging on that, so we might as well not even try.

um ok?

Forgive me for hijacking this otherwise interesting thread, but I have a question of my own on the subject. It prolably is inflammatory, at least a little, but I think it's something everyone should consider.

If all those who do not believe in the existence of God go to hell, and the only way not to go to hell is to become Christian...

...then in what way does God differ from, say, those third-world dictatorships where people with opinions contrary to those of El Presidente are thrown in prison and/or executed?

But in so doing, there is a phrase called turn the other cheek.


I don't even know what that means! Everytime it's explained, it comes out as generally offering your other cheek to be slapped after the guy did the first one. What's the point of that?




I do not believe you. I could ask you to prove all of what you said but I am not going to. The reason being is that it does not truly matter. No one here is going to convince. All we are doing is stating our povs.

Hai.



um ok?

Hai.

I could point out that even Christians can go to hell if they do not honestly believe in the Lord Savior.

Doesn't exactly explain how it's any different, though.

Forgive me for hijacking this otherwise interesting thread, but I have a question of my own on the subject. It prolably is inflammatory, at least a little, but I think it's something everyone should consider.

If all those who do not believe in the existence of God go to hell, and the only way not to go to hell is to become Christian...

...then in what way does God differ from, say, those third-world dictatorships where people with opinions contrary to those of El Presidente are thrown in prison and/or executed?

I could point out that even Christians can go to hell if they do not honestly believe in the Lord Savior.

That's evasion of the question and even stressing my point further. It could be compared to Stalin's extermination of many members of the Communist party.

Alot of people in my family are Jehovah's Witness. They have told me that every person that was never exposed to the teachings of Christ will be reincarnated after Armageddon and they will be given the option of learning to live under Jehovah's rules. They can accept, and continue to live in paradise under the laws set down be Jehovah, or they can reject it, and be erased from existence. (Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in hell, they believe that those who don't deserve eternal life in paradise shall be forgotten by Jehovah, and therefore not resurrected.)

In my belief, people who were never taught the teachings of Christ, and did not get a chance to learn about God go to a place called Purgatory. Purgatory is a place where people who didnt have a chance to learn about God, get a chance. If they accept, they go to Heaven, if they dont they go to Hell.

I don't even know what that means! Everytime it's explained, it comes out as generally offering your other cheek to be slapped after the guy did the first one. What's the point of that?If someone hits you on the right cheek he does it with the back of his hand, to turn the other (left) cheek mean to force him to deal with you with the open hand.

Doesn't exactly explain how it's any different, though.

God is a forgiving god. Even if one sin's and ask for forgiveness, you are granted it. With a third world dictator, you are executed if the government does not like you. That's a difference.

In my belief, people who were never taught the teachings of Christ, and did not get a chance to learn about God go to a place called Purgatory. Purgatory is a place where people who didnt have a chance to learn about God, get a chance. If they accept, they go to Heaven, if they dont they go to Hell.strange, isn't it? that god's love is only given on the condition that the love is returned. wouldn't you expect a father to love his children no matter what they think?

That's evasion of the question and even stressing my point further. It could be compared to Stalin's extermination of many members of the Communist party.

Also have to realize that Stalin was very jumpy. God is not as jumpy. God can forgive you. Third world leaders and stalinists, do not.

God is a forgiving god. Even if one sin's and ask for forgiveness, you are granted it. With a third world dictator, you are executed if the government does not like you. That's a difference.

True. However, asking God for forgiveness means that one already is a Christian, because an Atheist or someone of a different religion would not feel the need to ask forgiveness to this particular God, or even feel they had transgressed at all. You could say that God gives people more time than generic dictatorships, but supposedly God's been around since the dawn of time itselves. Then, some 70 or so years would hardly feel like a long time to him, would they?

EDIT: Also, I don't believe I will be judged. Even if god exists, I can't accept that he is that way. and that is your belief. just as it is his (your friends) belief that there will be a judgment day and that non-believers go to hell (Personally, I would rather other reasons to believe in God than eternal Damnation.)

If someone hits you on the right cheek he does it with the back of his hand, to turn the other (left) cheek mean to force him to deal with you with the open hand.

Or he's left-handed. Or ambidexterous. Or is able to use his off-hand to simply smack someone.

And what's so bad about having to deal with me with his open hand? Doesn't seem like much of an offputter. It's like "oh, I just smacked the shit out of your right cheek, and now you're allowing me to do the same with your left cheek. The humanity!"

That's evasion of the question and even stressing my point further. It could be compared to Stalin's extermination of many members of the Communist party.

No one denies that, if God were in government and it was run in the same way, it would be called a dictatorship. However, it would be a benovalent dictatorship, which in theory is perfect since God will always make the right decisions.

I believe the term is 'Theocracy'. We've got enough trouble with them in the Middle East, and those are run by humans. I don't *want* to know what an actual God could do at the head of them.

It seems this has gone way off topic. I would like to thank those of you who I previously typed to. I hope one day to get into another discussion with you all, but this thread seems to be breaking down too fast. Have a great day all.

I believe the term is 'Theocracy'. We've got enough trouble with them in the Middle East, and those are run by humans. I don't *want* to know what an actual God could do at the head of them.

It wouldn't be a theocracy, as the leader wouldn't be obeying a higher power. Also, God doesn't force people to be christian, so that means it's even less like a theocracy.

Or he's left-handed. Or ambidexterous. Or is able to use his off-hand to simply smack someone.

And what's so bad about having to deal with me with his open hand? Doesn't seem like much of an offputter. It's like "oh, I just smacked the shit out of your right cheek, and now you're allowing me to do the same with your left cheek. The humanity!"it's supposed to tell somethinng about forcing someone to consciously deal with you instead of just hitting you impulsively.

I believe the term is 'Theocracy'. We've got enough trouble with them in the Middle East, and those are run by humans. I don't *want* to know what an actual God could do at the head of them.in a theocracy god actually is at the head of them. or at least his laws are.

strange, isn't it? that god's love is only given on the condition that the love is returned. wouldn't you expect a father to love his children no matter what they think?

Look, God gives everyone more than enough chances to belive in him, and do you think its really so much to ask that if you just belive in God you get to go to Heaven? May I remind you heaven is a perfect land, without sin, or crime, or pain, where you just get to live a perfect life for an eternity.

So essentially, Earth is little more than a big sandbox where God selects the kids that get to play in his ultimate playground, forever?

Look, God gives everyone more than enough chances to belive in him, and do you think its really so much to ask that if you just belive in God you get to go to Heaven? May I remind you heaven is a perfect land, without sin, or crime, or pain, where you just get to live a perfect life for an eternity.what? how can i lokk at this messed up world and believe in a perfect god?

Look, God gives everyone more than enough chances to belive in him, and do you think its really so much to ask that if you just belive in God you get to go to Heaven? May I remind you heaven is a perfect land, without sin, or crime, or pain, where you just get to live a perfect life for an eternity.

Thanks but no thanks. I'm happy with my beliefs. I don't need to concern myself with the afterlife because that comes after I'm dead and when you're dead, you're already six feet under and worm food.

No one denies that, if God were in government and it was run in the same way, it would be called a dictatorship. However, it would be a benovalent dictatorship, which in theory is perfect since God will always make the right decisions.

Well, "right" is subjective. "Right" to him is bastardly to me.

what? how can i lokk at this messed up world and believe in a perfect god?

God didnt mess up the world, we did. How can you shun God and expect to live a perfect life. The world used to be perfect, but we screwed it up.

Thanks but no thanks. I'm happy with my beliefs. I don't need to concern myself with the afterlife because that comes after I'm dead and when you're dead, you're already six feet under and worm food.

then why don't you just say that to people?

Well, "right" is subjective. "Right" to him is bastardly to me.

Depends what sort of God you believe in.

it's supposed to tell somethinng about forcing someone to consciously deal with you instead of just hitting you impulsively.

So I'm consciously "dealt with". That doesn't help me at all, in any way.

then why don't you just say that to people?
Because it's just not the kind of think you say over dinner. :D Unless of course your company is worms... ;)

Because it's just not the kind of think you say over dinner. :D Unless of course your company is worms... ;)

you can't say "I am happy where I am now"

what kind of scary friends do you have that they won't accept you for who you are?

I'm pretty sure that on NSG before I have mentioned that I'm an atheist. I have posted my reasons behind it before so I won't go into that.

I would like an honest answer from the Christians here. I'm not seeking to bait you. I would just like to know something about you and your beliefs.

Last night I had a discussion with a young Christian, a kid who identified himself/herself as a Baptist and they asked me about my beliefs and when I said I was an atheist they were surprised because before I had told them my beliefs, they had told me a joke about a Catholic and atheist.

I think they might have been surprised that I laughed and said it was a good joke, as I took no offence to it.

Anyway, they said that those who accept Jesus Christ as their saviour and God they they won't go to hell. That even if you're wrong that at least you don't lose out.

I said I just can't believe it because I don't find it plausible.

They asked me to think about and that I should accept Him.

I'll make it clear, I was very civil and I never once mentioned my beliefs until I was asked. I never said anything beyond that I simply didn't think religion fitted my faith needs. I also said that I believe that as long as you're a good person and you've done the right thing that religion and a belief a God is secondary.

Why is it that when an atheist says they don't believe or cannot accept those two figures, some Christians ask you to think about and consider it? Or they tell you that you're not going to hell if you believe in God? Or seem to think that religion makes you a better person?

I'm not looking to start a flame war; I'm just curious as to why.

Thanks NSG. :)

http://i7.tinypic.com/4mrk186.jpg

So I'm consciously "dealt with". That doesn't help me at all, in any way.complain to Jesus, not me

God didnt mess up the world, we did. How can you shun God and expect to live a perfect life. The world used to be perfect, but we screwed it up.o please,god could have delivered a beteer humankind than he did. didn't he know all this before? if humankind goes wrong, it's his responsibility then.

you can't say "I am happy where I am now"

what kind of scary friends do you have that they won't accept you for who you are?

I say it but people seem to think that because I'm absolutely nuts most days that I'm just delirious. :)

And not all my friends are that scary. I usually don't talk about my beliefs until they ask me, so it's a shock for most people because I can be quite pleasant in real life... so they don't think I'm, as my fiance says, 'a militant atheist'...;) though once I'm done these meds of mine, I should be back to my usual sour-puss self. :)

I could be that I try and tone it down most days because I can scare people more than they scare me.

God didnt mess up the world, we did. How can you shun God and expect to live a perfect life. The world used to be perfect, but we screwed it up.

You are most certainly correct that we did.

God didnt mess up the world, we did. How can you shun God and expect to live a perfect life. The world used to be perfect, but we screwed it up.
Yep, there were no volcanoes until humanity messed up plate tectonics. There was no such thing as a drought until humanity decided to fuck with the wind patterns and the Gulf Stream. Indeed, this world did not experience any catastrophic natural disasters or harmful ecological effects until humanity started getting uppity.

Oh. Waitaminute.

Please, people, think twice before you say something as monumentally boneheaded as, "Humanity messed up the once-perfect world." As somebody who has lost two loved ones to natural disasters, I'd like to extend a resounding FUCK YOU to anybody who presumes to blame humanity for their deaths.

Yep, there were no volcanoes until humanity messed up plate tectonics. There was no such thing as a drought until humanity decided to fuck with the wind patterns and the Gulf Stream. Indeed, this world did not experience any catastrophic natural disasters or harmful ecological effects until humanity started getting uppity.

Oh. Waitaminute.

Please, people, think twice before you say something as monumentally boneheaded as, "Humanity messed up the once-perfect world." As somebody who has lost two loved ones to natural disasters, I'd like to extend a resounding FUCK YOU to anybody who presumes to blame humanity for their deaths.

hey Bottle, you have a TG.

Man did not mess up this world. From it's very incarnation from the Demi-urge, the world as matter was created imperfect. I would like to invite you to read this letter written by a second century theologian. It is called the Letter to Flora, from a Gnostic teacher to an orthodoxy student. Whether or not you believe it's contents, you should find it quite an interesting read.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/flora.htm

Ptolemy's Letter to Flora

The Law was ordained through Moses, my dear sister Flora, has not been understood by many persons, who have accurate knowledge neither of him who ordained it nor of its commandments. I think that this will be perfectly clear to you when you have learned the contradictory opinions about it.

Some say that it is legislation given by God the Father; others, taking the contrary course, maintain stubbornly that it was ordained by the opposite, the Devil who causes destruction, just as they attribute the fashioning of the world to him, saying that he is the Father and maker of this universe. Both are completely in error; they refute each other and neither has reached the truth of the matter.

For it is evident that the Law was not ordained by the perfect God the Father, for it is secondary, being imperfect and in need of completion by another, containing commandments alien to the nature and thought of such a God.

On the other hand, one cannot impute the Law to the injustice of the opposite, God, for it is opposed to injustice. Such persons do not comprehend what was said by the Savior. For a house or city divided against itself cannot stand [Matt 12:25], declared our Savior. Furthermore, the apostle says that creation of the world is due to him, for Everything was made through him and apart from him nothing was made. [John 1:3] Thus he takes away in advance the baseless wisdom of the false accusers, and shows that the creation is not due to a God who corrupts but to the one who is just and hates evil. Only unintelligent men have this idea, men who do not recognize the providence of the creator and have blinded not only the eye of the soul but also of the body.

From what has been said, it is evident that these persons entirely miss the truth; each of the two groups has experienced this, the first because they do not know the God of justice, the second because they do not know the Father of all, who alone was revealed by him who alone came. It remainds for us who have been counted worthy of the knowledge of both these to provide you with an accurate explanation of the nature of the Law and the legislator by whom it was ordained. We shall draw the proofs of what we say from the words of the Savior, which alone can lead us without error to the comprehension of reality.

First, you must learn that the entire Law contained in the Pentateuch of Moses was not ordained by one legislator - I mean, not by God alone, some commandments are Moses', and some were given by other men. The words of the Savior teach us this triple division. The first part must be attributed to God alone, and his legislation; the second to Moses - not in the sense that God legislates through him, but in the sense that Moses gave some legislation under the influence of his own ideas; and the third to the elders of the people, who seem to have ordained some commandments of their own at the beginning. You will now learn how the truth of this theory is proved by the words of the Savior.

In some discussion with those who dispute with the Savior about divorce, which was permitted in the Law, he said Because of your hard-heartedness Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife; from the beginning it was not so; for God made this marriage, and what the Lord joined together, man must not seperate. [Matt 19:8] In this way he shows there is a Law of God, which prohibits the divorce of a wife from a husband, and another law, that of Moses, which permits the breaking of this yoke because of hard-heartedness. In fact, Moses lays down legislation contrary to that of God; for joining is contrary to not joining.

But if we examine the intention of Moses in giving this legislation, it will be seen that he did not give it arbitrarily or of his own accord, but by the necessity because of the weakness of those for whom the legislation was given. Since they were unable to keep the intention of God, according to which it was not lawful for them to reject their wives, with whom some of them disliked to live, and therefore were in the danger of turning to greater injustice and thence to destruction, Moses wanted to remove the cause of dislike, which was placing them in jeopardy of destruction. Therefore because of the critical circumstances, choosing a lesser evil in place of a greater, he ordained, on his own accord, a second law, that of divorce, so that if they could not observe the first, they might keep this and not turn to unjust and evil actions, through which complete destruction would be the result for them. This was his intention when he gave legislation contrary to that of God. Therefore it is indisputeable that here the law of Moses is different from the Law of God, even if we have demonstrated the fact from only one example.

The Savior also makes plain the fact that there are some traditions of the elders interwoven in the Law. For God,he says, Said, Honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, But you , he says addressing the elders, ...have declared as a gift to God, that by which you have nullified the Law of God through the tradition of your elders. Isaiah also proclaimed this, saying, This people honours me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, teaching precepts which are the commandments of men. [Matt 15:4-9].

Therefore it is obvious that the whole Law is divided into three parts; we find in it the legislation of Moses, of the elders, and of God himself. This division of the entire Law, as made by us, has brought to light what is true in it.

This part, the Law of God himself, is in turn divided into three parts: the pure legislation not mixed with evil, which properly called Law, which the Savior came not to destroy but to complete [Matt 5:17] -- for what he completed was not alien to him but needed completion, for it did not possess perfection; next the legislation interwoven with the inferiority and injustice, which the Savior destroyed because it was alien to his nature; and finally, the legislation which is allegorical and symbolic, an image of what is spiritual and transcendent, which the Saviour transferred from the perceptible and phenomenal to the spiritual and invisible.

The Law of God, pure and not mixed with inferiority, is the Decalogue, those ten sayings engraved on two tables, forbidding things not to be done and enjoining things to be done. These contains pure but imperfect legislation and required the completion made by the Savior.

There is also the law interwoven with injustice, laid down for vengeance and the requital of previous injuries, ordaining that an eye should be cut out for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and that a murder should be avenged by a murderer. The person who is the second one to be unjust is no less unjust than the first; he simply changes the order of events while performing the same action. Admittedly, this commandment was a just one and still is just, because of the weakness of those for whom the legislation was made so thay would not transgress the pure law. But it is alien to the nature and goodness of the Father of all. No doubt it was appropiate to the circumstances, or even necessary; for he who does not want one murder comitted, saying, You shall not kill and then commanded a murder to be repaid by another murder, has given a second law which enjoins two murders although he had forbidden one. This fact proves that he was unsuspectingly the victim of necessity.

This is why, when his son came, he destroyed this part of the law while admitting that it came from God. He counts this part of the law as in the old religion, not only in other passages but also where he said, God said, He who curses father or mother shall surely die.

Finally, there is the allegorical (exemplary) part, ordained in the image of the spiritual and trascendent matters, I mean the part dealing with offerings and circumcision and the sabbath and fasting and Passover and unleavened bread and other similar matters.

Since all these things are images and symbols, when the truth was made manifest they were translated to another meaning. In their phenomenal appearance and their literal application they were destroyed, but in their spiritual meaning they were restored; the names remained the same but the content was changed. Thus the Savior commaned us to make offerings not of irrational animals or of the incense of this worldly sort, but of spiritual praise and glorification and thanksgiving and of sharing and well-doing with our neighbors. He wanted us to be circumcised, not in regard to our physical foreskin but in regard to our spiritual heart; to keep the Sabbath, for he wishes us to be idle in regard to evil works; to fast, not in physical fasting but in spiritual, in which there is abstinence from everything evil.

Among us external fasting is also observed, since it can be advantageous to the soul if it is done reasonably, not for imitating others or from habit or because of a special day appointed for this purpose. It is also observed so that those who are not yet able to keep the true fast may have a reminder of it from the external fast. Similarely, Paul the apostle shows that the Passover and the unleavened bread are images when he says, Christ our passover has been sacrificed, in order that you may be unleavened bread, not containing leaven (by leaven he here means evil), but may be a new lump. [1 Cor 5:7]

Thus the Law of God itself is obviously divided into three parts. The first was completed by the Savior, for the commandment, You shall not kill , You shall not commit adultery, you shall not swear falsely are included in the forbiding of anger, desire and swearing. The second part was entirely destroyed, for An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth interwoven in with injustice, was destroyed by the Savior through its opposite. Opposites cancel out, For I say to you, do not resist the evil man, but if anyone strikes you, turn the other cheek to him.

Finally, there is the part translated and changed from the literal to the spiritual, this symbolic legislation which is an image of transcendent things. For the images and symbols which represent other things were good as long as the Truth has not come; but since the Truth has come, we must perform the actions of the Truth, not those of the image.

The disciples of the Savior and the Apostle Paul showed that this theory is true, speaking of the part dealing with images, as we have already said, in mentioning The passover for us and the Unleavened bread; for the law interwoven with injustice when he says that the law of commandments in ordinances were destroyed [Eph 2:15]; and of that not mixed with anything inferior when he says that The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good [Rom 7:12]. I think I have shown you sufficiently, as well as one can in brief compass, the addition of human legislation in the Law and the triple division of the Law of God itself.

It remains for us to say who this God is who ordained the Law; but I think this too has been shown you in what we have already said, if you have listened to it attentively.

For if the Law was not ordained by the perfect God himself, as we have already thaught you, nor by the devil, a statement one cannot possibly make, the legislator must be some one other than these two. In fact, he is the demiurge and maker of this universe and everything in it; and because he is essentially different from these two and is between them, he is rightly given the name, intermediate.

And if the perfect God is good by nature, in fact he is, for our Savior declared that there is only a single good God, his Father whom he manifested; and if the one who is the opposite nature is evil and wicked, characterized by injustice; then the one situated between the two is neither good nor evil or unjust, but can properly be called just, since he is the arbitrator of the justice which is his.

On the one hand, this god will be inferior to the perfect God and the lower than his justice, since he is generated and not ungenerated -- there is only one ungenerated Father, from whom are all things [1 Cor 8:6], since all things depend on him in their own ways. On the other hand, he will be greater and more powerful than the adversary, by nature, since he has a substance of either of them. The substance of the adversary is corruption and darkness, for he is material and complex, while the substance of the ungenerated Father of all is incorruption and self-existent light, simple and homogeneous. The substance of the latter produced a double power, while the Savior is an image of the greater one.

And now, do not let this trouble you for the present in your desire to learn how from one first principle of all, simple, and acknowledgedby us and believed by us, ungenerated and incorruptible and good, were constituted these natures of corruption and the Middle, which are different substances, although it is characteristic of the good to generate and produce things which are like itself and have the same substance.

For, if God permit, you will later learn about their origin and generation, when you are judged worthy of the apostolic tradition which we too have received by succession. We too are able to prove all our points by the teaching of the Savior.

In making these brief statements to you, my sister Flora, I have not grown weary; and while I have treated the subject with brevity, I have also discussed it sufficiencly. These points will be of great benefit to you in the future, if like fair and good ground you have received fertile seeds and go on to show forth their fruit.

o please,god could have delivered a beteer humankind than he did. didn't he know all this before? if humankind goes wrong, it's his responsibility then.

Im still not entirly sure if God can see into the future, but when he made man in the beggining, it was perfect. Its because God gave us free will that society sucks. Its our decision if we want to live a good life and make society better. Its not Gods fault that society sucks, its ours.

Im still not entirly sure if God can see into the future, but when he made man in the beggining, it was perfect. Its because God gave us free will that society sucks. Its our decision if we want to live a good life and make society better. Its not Gods fault that society sucks, its ours.

Please read my response above.

Im still not entirly sure if God can see into the future, but when he made man in the beggining, it was perfect. Its because God gave us free will that society sucks. Its our decision if we want to live a good life and make society better. Its not Gods fault that society sucks, its ours.

What evidence have you got to say that the world was perfect before man? The fossil record shows bones broken and gnawed upon violently, mass extinctions, and animals adapted to slaughter each other. Obviously you're free to believe what you want, but the evidence is against you.

Im still not entirly sure if God can see into the future, but when he made man in the beggining, it was perfect. Its because God gave us free will that society sucks. Its our decision if we want to live a good life and make society better. Its not Gods fault that society sucks, its ours.
Kind of like how, as a parent, your baby is perfect on the day it's born. But if you are a shitty parent and completely and utterly fail at rearing you child, and he grows up to be a serial killer, it's his fault because he fucked up.

Or something...?

What evidence have you got to say that the world was perfect before man? The fossil record shows bones broken and gnawed upon violently, mass extinctions, and animals adapted to slaughter each other. Obviously you're free to believe what you want, but the evidence is against you.

This is actually a good point. But maybe by perfect, it means perfect for humans, after all the Bible does mention eating meat in the garden of eden.

What evidence have you got to say that the world was perfect before man? The fossil record shows bones broken and gnawed upon violently, mass extinctions, and animals adapted to slaughter each other. Obviously you're free to believe what you want, but the evidence is against you.

Whos to say those fossils were made at the very beggining of time, or later on. If you read the book of Gennisis you will note that the world was in fact perect.

Whos to say those fossils were made at the very beggining of time, or later on. If you read the book of Gennisis you will note that the world was in fact perect.

According to Genesis. Yes. But we're going on ALL the evidence, not just the ol' dusty tome.

Whos to say those fossils were made at the very beggining of time, or later on. If you read the book of Gennisis you will note that the world was in fact perect.

Oh, you're a creationist. Nevermind.

Oh, you're a creationist. Nevermind.

I lol'd.

I lol'd.

You remember that time when we lol'd as hard as we lol'd? Yeah, I lol'd pretty hard. Lol.






Lol.





Forgive me, I know not what I do. Urges to playfully mock... overwhelming...

What evidence have you got to say that the world was perfect before man? The fossil record shows bones broken and gnawed upon violently, mass extinctions, and animals adapted to slaughter each other. Obviously you're free to believe what you want, but the evidence is against you.how are carnivorous animals evidence for a non-perfect world?

It means some species will have to survive by killing other species. Either way, members of a species die in ways we'd consider rather horrible.

how are carnivorous animals evidence for a non-perfect world?

This

Is

Necessary.

Life

Feeds on life

Feeds on life

Feeds on

This

Is

Necessary.


Taking an idea from somewhere I heard this from: Everything in the world gets its nutrients and life from the sun, whether by being a plant and getting it directly, being an animal and eating the plant or being an animal and eating the animal that eats the plant. If the world was perfect, we would all be as the plant, and get all our life force from the sun itself. That would be the most perfect and efficient way of life.

You remember that time when we lol'd as hard as we lol'd? Yeah, I lol'd pretty hard. Lol.
Lol.
Forgive me, I know not what I do. Urges to playfully mock... overwhelming...

Bless you, you silly, silly Virginian!

Kind of like how, as a parent, your baby is perfect on the day it's born. But if you are a shitty parent and completely and utterly fail at rearing you child, and he grows up to be a serial killer, it's his fault because he fucked up.

Or something...?hey, kids can always surpass their crappy parents. and gods. :)

I lol'd.

That's my new attitude toward creationists. If you met someone who was convinced the sky was orange would you waste your time trying to tell them it's blue?

This

Is

Necessary.

Life

Feeds on life

Feeds on life

Feeds on

This

Is

Necessary.


Taking an idea from somewhere I heard this from: Everything in the world gets its nutrients and life from the sun, whether by being a plant and getting it directly, being an animal and eating the plant or being an animal and eating the animal that eats the plant. If the world was perfect, we would all be as the plant, and get all our life force from the sun itself. That would be the most perfect and efficient way of life.

Me likey tool.

That's my new attitude toward creationists. If you met someone who was convinced the sky was orange would you waste your time trying to tell them it's blue?

Well, first I'd check if they were colorblind. Then I'd laugh at them.

Well, first I'd check if they were colorblind. Then I'd laugh at them.

Before or after you were sure? ;)

Has anyone ever considered the possibility of being color-dumb? Meaning that you percieve the right colors, but are unable to speak them? ;) Anyway, I fear I am taking it a bit off track... But I felt like saying it.

Before or after you were sure? ;)

It depends on my mood at the time, and how evil I'm feeling. :D

Alot of people in my family are Jehovah's Witness. They have told me that every person that was never exposed to the teachings of Christ will be reincarnated after Armageddon and they will be given the option of learning to live under Jehovah's rules. They can accept, and continue to live in paradise under the laws set down be Jehovah, or they can reject it, and be erased from existence. (Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in hell, they believe that those who don't deserve eternal life in paradise shall be forgotten by Jehovah, and therefore not resurrected.)

You see, this is what I don't understand about Jehovah's Witnesses. My great grandmother was a Jehovah's Witness (which I never actually knew until she died, which just goes to show you how casual my family is about religion)

Anyway, at her funeral/memorial service/death buffet they spoke a lot about the afterlife in the belief system of the Jehovah's Witness. They kept saying how there was no hell, and no punishment after death, but isn't being erased from existance a form of punishment? I ask objectively, being an athiest myself and admitting no understanding of what goes on beyond death other than the rotting of your corpse. The way I see it though, and I tend to apply this to all god(s) is that if they really are unflawed, all knowing and possessing of an infinite love and understanding, then why would a god(s) punish at all in the afterlife. Similarilly, how could humans be so arrogant as to attempt to not only understand god(s) reasoning as to the keeping and distribution of souls, but to proclaim that it is the absolute way of things? This has always been a big thing with me and trying to understand god(s).

On another topic I also think that athiests have their own spirituality. They don't necessarilly hold to a specific written guideline, but everyonbe at some point in their life has thanked or cursed some unseen force for some event in their life. I think it's a trait of humanity in general to hold something outside of our control responsible for our lives, to take some of the pressure of simply living off of our shoulders.

Bless you, you silly, silly Virginian!

*buttsecks*

Me likey tool.

*buttsecks*

Whos to say those fossils were made at the very beggining of time, or later on. If you read the book of Gennisis you will note that the world was in fact perect.
If you read the Book of Genesis, you will note that plants were made before the Sun and that an omnipotent and omniscient Creator-being required a day off to rest up.

Considering the glaring imperfections of the Book of Genesis, you might not want to use it as your yardstick for perfection.

*buttsecks*



*buttsecks*

There is only one picture that is right for this...

http://www.lolcats2.com/full/invisiblebuttsecks.jpg

If you read the Book of Genesis, you will note that plants were made before the Sun and that an omnipotent and omniscient Creator-being required a day off to rest up.

Considering the glaring imperfections of the Book of Genesis, you might not want to use it as your yardstick for perfection.

Hai.

But that would make sense. C'mon.

There is only one picture that is right for this...

http://www.lolcats2.com/full/invisiblebuttsecks.jpg

The pic itself wouldn't show, but I saw the filename and knew what it was, because I'd seen it before. =)


Also, see www.icanhascheezburger.com

The pic itself wouldn't show, but I saw the filename and knew what it was, because I'd seen it before. =)


Also, see www.icanhascheezburger.com

I realised that... I copied the wrong friggin' URL like I always do and I posted without checking. You know, all that good old fashion n00b stuff. :)

I realised that... I copied the wrong friggin' URL like I always do and I posted without checking. You know, all that good old fashion n00b stuff. :)

It happens. =)

I remember not knowing how to create a sig on a forum. So sad.

Why not ask someone why they like particular music? Why they like particular food. If you have no sense of hearing or taste you will never understand their answer. Same goes for spiritual matters. If you are not a person of faith - real faith in something - then the answer will forever mystify you.


I'm pretty sure that on NSG before I have mentioned that I'm an atheist. I have posted my reasons behind it before so I won't go into that.

I would like an honest answer from the Christians here. I'm not seeking to bait you. I would just like to know something about you and your beliefs.

Last night I had a discussion with a young Christian, a kid who identified himself/herself as a Baptist and they asked me about my beliefs and when I said I was an atheist they were surprised because before I had told them my beliefs, they had told me a joke about a Catholic and atheist.

I think they might have been surprised that I laughed and said it was a good joke, as I took no offence to it.

Anyway, they said that those who accept Jesus Christ as their saviour and God they they won't go to hell. That even if you're wrong that at least you don't lose out.

I said I just can't believe it because I don't find it plausible.

They asked me to think about and that I should accept Him.

I'll make it clear, I was very civil and I never once mentioned my beliefs until I was asked. I never said anything beyond that I simply didn't think religion fitted my faith needs. I also said that I believe that as long as you're a good person and you've done the right thing that religion and a belief a God is secondary.

Why is it that when an atheist says they don't believe or cannot accept those two figures, some Christians ask you to think about and consider it? Or they tell you that you're not going to hell if you believe in God? Or seem to think that religion makes you a better person?

I'm not looking to start a flame war; I'm just curious as to why.

Thanks NSG. :)

Why not ask someone why they like particular music? Why they like particular food. If you have no sense of hearing or taste you will never understand their answer. Same goes for spiritual matters. If you are not a person of faith - real faith in something - then the answer will forever mystify you.

But there is nothing wrong with wanting to learn why so that way you can better understand those who won't understand you so you can begin to bridge the gap.

If you read the Book of Genesis, you will note that plants were made before the Sun and that an omnipotent and omniscient Creator-being required a day off to rest up.

Considering the glaring imperfections of the Book of Genesis, you might not want to use it as your yardstick for perfection.

You admit God's omnipotence. Clearly, God didn't need light to make plants grow. Or, just perhaps, the plants were able to survive one day in the dark.

You admit God's omnipotence. Clearly, God didn't need light to make plants grow. Or, just perhaps, the plants were able to survive one day in the dark.

If they're mushrooms or some sort of mouldy fungus.

If they're mushrooms or some sort of mouldy fungus.
Are fungus considered plants? I thought they were a quasi third kingdom. :confused:

Any case, back to our original question... Some people are very, very silly and like it better when everyone acts and believes the same.

That goes for both those of the religious and non persuasion.

Are fungus considered plants? I thought they were a quasi third kingdom. :confused:

Any case, back to our original question... Some people are very, very silly and like it better when everyone acts and believes the same.

That goes for both those of the religious and non persuasion.

There's nothing quasi about it. I believe it goes something like:

Animals

Plants

Fungi

Protozoans

Bacteria

Monerans

or something

Are fungus considered plants? I thought they were a quasi third kingdom. :confused:
I don't know. It was a shot in the dark. It was the only thing I could think of that grew without light... that and the common sense that dominated the average politician's mind. ;)

Are fungus considered plants? I thought they were a quasi third kingdom. :confused:
Nope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungus)

they were... but they were then seperated into their own catagory.

I would have pulled out my handy copy of Marx Capital and the Communist Manifesto and started to lecture him about the class war and the means of production.

Nope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungus)

they were... but they were then seperated into their own catagory.
Oh good, I DO remember my biology classes after all then. :)

Thanks but no thanks. I'm happy with my beliefs. I don't need to concern myself with the afterlife because that comes after I'm dead and when you're dead, you're already six feet under and worm food.

then why don't you just say that to people?
She won't say that to people, because she would rather waste her finite time debating that there is no God????

Go figure.

Despite her protestations to the contrary in the (OP), I honestly believe that her intentions are/were to stir up the never ending God/heaven debate?

Why is it that when an atheist says they don't believe or cannot accept those two figures, some Christians ask you to think about and consider it?
Perhaps they are good Christians who care about you?

Or they tell you that you're not going to hell if you believe in God?
That is their belief? You believe otherwise. Who is right?

Or seem to think that religion makes you a better person?
Being religious certainly would give one the opportunity to be a better person?

From your Wiki article: Atheist views of sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin#Atheist_views_of_sin)

I'm not looking to start a flame war;
I don't believe you. :p

I'm just curious as to why
Why.....what?

Here's a thought I had; If heaven is so great why is it filled with creepy church people?

I'm pretty sure that on NSG before I have mentioned that I'm an atheist. I have posted my reasons behind it before so I won't go into that.

I would like an honest answer from the Christians here. I'm not seeking to bait you. I would just like to know something about you and your beliefs.

Last night I had a discussion with a young Christian, a kid who identified himself/herself as a Baptist and they asked me about my beliefs and when I said I was an atheist they were surprised because before I had told them my beliefs, they had told me a joke about a Catholic and atheist.

I think they might have been surprised that I laughed and said it was a good joke, as I took no offence to it.

Anyway, they said that those who accept Jesus Christ as their saviour and God they they won't go to hell. That even if you're wrong that at least you don't lose out.

I said I just can't believe it because I don't find it plausible.

They asked me to think about and that I should accept Him.

I'll make it clear, I was very civil and I never once mentioned my beliefs until I was asked. I never said anything beyond that I simply didn't think religion fitted my faith needs. I also said that I believe that as long as you're a good person and you've done the right thing that religion and a belief a God is secondary.

Why is it that when an atheist says they don't believe or cannot accept those two figures, some Christians ask you to think about and consider it? Or they tell you that you're not going to hell if you believe in God? Or seem to think that religion makes you a better person?

I'm not looking to start a flame war; I'm just curious as to why.

Thanks NSG. :)


Christianity- Dozens of denominations who identify themselves as christians. Your situation involved babtists. The question itself is a fallacy, as specification is needed.

Perhaps they are good Christians who care about you?

I've had several people preach to me over the years and the only one who I know was sincere was an older friend of mine.

The kid in question I know casually. I knew a couple of Christians in high school but they were quite preachy. I think part of it was a superiority thing because I was younger and not into religion... meh.

That is their belief? You believe otherwise. Who is right?

We're both right; we're both wrong. The two cancel each other out.

Being religious certainly would give one the opportunity to be a better person?

From your Wiki article: Atheist views of sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin#Atheist_views_of_sin)

I tried religion once. It kind of tasted bland. :D

I don't believe you. :p

But at least you're not an A-Kryozerkiast. ;)

Why.....what?

Why 'why what' what? :D

Look, God gives everyone more than enough chances to belive in him, and do you think its really so much to ask that if you just belive in God you get to go to Heaven? May I remind you heaven is a perfect land, without sin, or crime, or pain, where you just get to live a perfect life for an eternity.

Heaven is... what? I'm not sure I find your story accurate to the scripture.

And... seriously... how does god give 'everyone more than enough chances to belive in him', when not everyone has even heard his name, or encountered his press releases?

In my belief, people who were never taught the teachings of Christ, and did not get a chance to learn about God go to a place called Purgatory. Purgatory is a place where people who didnt have a chance to learn about God, get a chance. If they accept, they go to Heaven, if they dont they go to Hell.

Again... I'm not sure your story is reflected in scripture...

You admit God's omnipotence. Clearly, God didn't need light to make plants grow. Or, just perhaps, the plants were able to survive one day in the dark.
Technically, YOU admit God's omnipotence. Which leaves you to explain why an all-powerful being would need or want to "rest".

You also might want to explain why said omnipotent, omniscient Creator "divinely inspired" a Creation story that actually contains two complete contradictory timelines.

I'm pretty sure that on NSG before I have mentioned that I'm an atheist. I have posted my reasons behind it before so I won't go into that.

I would like an honest answer from the Christians here. I'm not seeking to bait you. I would just like to know something about you and your beliefs.

Last night I had a discussion with a young Christian, a kid who identified himself/herself as a Baptist and they asked me about my beliefs and when I said I was an atheist they were surprised because before I had told them my beliefs, they had told me a joke about a Catholic and atheist.

I think they might have been surprised that I laughed and said it was a good joke, as I took no offence to it.

Anyway, they said that those who accept Jesus Christ as their saviour and God they they won't go to hell. That even if you're wrong that at least you don't lose out.

I said I just can't believe it because I don't find it plausible.

They asked me to think about and that I should accept Him.

I'll make it clear, I was very civil and I never once mentioned my beliefs until I was asked. I never said anything beyond that I simply didn't think religion fitted my faith needs. I also said that I believe that as long as you're a good person and you've done the right thing that religion and a belief a God is secondary.

Why is it that when an atheist says they don't believe or cannot accept those two figures, some Christians ask you to think about and consider it? Or they tell you that you're not going to hell if you believe in God? Or seem to think that religion makes you a better person?

I'm not looking to start a flame war; I'm just curious as to why.

Thanks NSG. :)

Why is it when someone says they're gay, everyone else in the room says they're straight?

Why is it when someone mentions they're a vegetarian, someone else has to mention how much they love steak?

Why is it when someone says anything, someone nearby has to pipe up and say the opposite?

It's because people love their opinions and beliefs; moreover, they love to pretend that other people care about them. People will not hesitate to shove anything they believe in your face at the slightest opportunity, because god forbid they don't reaffirm it every twenty seconds.. otherwise, they might start to actually think about it.

So, to answer your question.. Christians constantly trying to show people their 'way' is like that obnoxious person that bombards your work e-mail with jokes because she thinks they're funny.. They are somehow unable to understand that you will think differently from them, and that your opinions, beliefs, or sense of humor may somehow *be* different.