Rather than respond privately via e-mail, or in the comments section where she asked the question, I felt it was necessary to answer here. This is probably one of the most commonly asked questions, or at least one of the most commonly expressed opinions about atheists; that without a belief in a God, we would somehow lack a moral compass in our lives.
Comment Added
A comment has been posted to the Journal:
Aurora Walking Vacation
Thursday carnival info
Comment from: sazzylilsmartazz
"Paul, this is probably going to sound like a dumb question but if a person is an atheist, i.e. does not believe in the existence of any deity, do they still have a moral conscience? What about lying, stealing, cheating, murder and all of the other things that are actually harmful to other human beings? How does an atheist feel about those things and what do they teach their children?
I'm agnostic, meaning I do not know if there is a god or not. Whenever we look at the history of religion we see nothing but bigotry and bloodshed. Yet, when I read the Ten Commandments in Exodus, I feel all the laws are "good" for people but the ones who seem to break them most are the religious leaders themselves.
What do you think the world would be like if everyone suddenly became atheist?
Dianna"
The short answer, Dianna, is yes, I do still have a moral conscience. I do believe that "lying, stealing, cheating, murder, and all of the other things that are actually harmful to other human beings" are bad. But, I don't believe that they are bad just because some alleged, invisible sky-daddy said so. I believe they are bad because they are harmful to other human beings.
This is the thing that makes atheists shake their heads in frustration. We hold our morals, which really aren't any different from your morals, out of respect and consideration for our fellow human beings. According to religious people, they hold their morals only because God tells them to. Only through a fear of hell does a Christian not covet his neighbour's monster truck. Only through a fear of eternal damnation does a Christian not lie, steal and cheat. Only through a fear of the loss of his immortal soul does a Christian plunk his ass down in the pew every Sunday morning. Who would you rather trust, the guy who would screw your wife if only God hadn't said it was wrong, or the guy who wouldn't, because he knows it's wrong without having to ask a dead guy nailed to a tree first?
Here's the mistake many Christians make. They think that an atheist's rejection of God constitutes a complete rejection of all that Christianity stands for; of all that The Bible says. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I say in my list of 100 things about me, I've read The Bible from cover to cover (well, I kinda skimmed the begets). I think it is a marvel of human literature, and full of much wisdom. I also think that great, honking sections of it are full of shit, but for the most part, it offers a lot of wisdom.
I think I have mentioned before that whenever my family and I visit my Sister's family in Ottawa, we accompany them to church on Sunday. The Pastor of their church has a remarkable ability to give biblical teachings relevance in our twenty first century world. I often walk out of the chapel with moistened eyes, humbled by something he has made me realise about myself, and my relationship with those around me. At no time, however, has one of those experiences led me to question my atheism. I believe that there is great wisdom to be found in The Bible. I simply believe that it is human wisdom.
There are some things that cannot be denied. It is clear that there is morality in the world. The vast majority of the common people in the world live their lives according to some moral code or another. To deny the existence of that morality would be silly. It is evident in every single thing we do, each and every day of our lives. So, denying the existence of a God is not equal to denying the existence of morality. It simply reassigns the source of that morality. To us. To you and me.
The Golden Rule is where it's at, baby. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That's all there is to it. I understand how I would be harmed were someone to lie to, steal from, cheat on, or murder me. That translates into understanding how others would feel were I to lie to, steal from, cheat on, or murder them. Or do any of the other things that are actually harmful to other human beings. The expansion of that concrete knowledge of how I would feel, into the abstract, empathic knowledge of how others would feel in the same situation is the very basis of humanity's moral compass. As far as I'm concerned, humanity developed that moral compass first, and attributed it to the Gods later.
We're really not all that different, the theistic, and the a-theistic. We both teach our children exactly the same morals. I just don't attribute mine to Invisible Pink Unicorns, Blue Fairies on the Moon, or other silly things for whose existence there is no supporting evidence.
And that's all I have to say about that.
tags:Skepticism,
100 comments:
Excellent answer. Thank you.
Dianna
Well, of course, it's a distortion to generalize that Christians behave themselves only because God says they should, or else. There's also altruism at work, and enlightened self-interest, logic and emotion and cultural sensibility and upbringing...in short, all the usual reasons why anyone tries to do what's right. I'm sure for some people, the "or else!" comes into play, but for others, God's primary role in morality, aside from Savior (and no, I don't want to debate that bit, thank-you-very-much), is as the source and teacher of all this "love thy neighbor," don't kill your parents stuff. You may argue that ethical precepts can be derived without a deity, but many of us believe that they're God-inspired, whether they appeared on stone tablets or in any other venue, ancient or modern. Unfortunately, we're not always very good about following the "rules." - Karen
http://outmavarin.blogspot.com
"I just don't attribute mine to Invisible Pink Unicorns, Blue Fairies on the Moon, or other silly things for whose existence there is no supporting evidence."
Paul, if the Blue fairies or Pink unicorn work as a moral compass, does it really matter whether or not their existance is substantiated? I guess this entry made me think about a society somewhere, that had no bible, no Torah, or religious leader. Not even a political one. Do you think a society like that would by nature be violent and immoral by our standards ( I say that because they would have no standards to measure their behavior by) What road do you think they would choose to travel? It seems every society finds some sort of compass, whether it be the sun, moon or yeah, a unicorn. Why do you think societies seem to always seek out some sort of mysterious higher power, that they use as guidance or a source of something to be feared?
Outstanding explanation, Paul. Have you ever stopped to notice the irony that a great many athiests lead a much more "Christian" existence, by definition, than a great many Christians?
The thing is, I'll never trust religion as any sort of moral compass. I agree that the Bible does contain a lot of wisdom (or, at least it did before being perverted by biased interpretations and translations); however, I simply can't endorse something which people use as a tool in order to justify their own petty, personal hatreds, fears or inability to comprehend the world around them. Christianity today, for example, has turned into a power-hungry, elitist, hate-filled nightmare of fear and ignorance. There's just too much hypocracy.
-Dan
Nice answer Paul. Whenever I'm asked this question, some form of the following conversation often occurs:
Me: Why do you think that what your god says is morally right actually is morally right? Is it just because the deity says so, or because you think the deity knows what is right?
Them: Well, whatever god says is right is morally right.
Me: So if God said that rape was ok, you'd believe rape was ok too?
Them: God would never say that!
Me: Why?
Them: Because rape is wrong.
To me, this implies that most religious people don't actually think that god has just made a bunch of arbitrary rules, but has reasons for saying why something is right or wrong. If you don't think your deity just flipped a coin to decide if rape is right or wrong, then don't you therefore think that your deity has a reason, separate from arbitrarily deciding, that rape is wrong? If this is so, then morality (and the reasons something is right/wrong) is separate from the deity and therefore, as an Atheist, I can still try to find and judge the reasons even without having a deity to tell me them. :) Now, a person might claim that their deity has better access to the reasons than any human and so is still the best source of morality, but that's a whole other conversation.
To echo, very lucid response, Paul. The separation of morality from theism is as important a distinction as separating church from state. Although, unfortunately, the former is slightly more intuitive.
And the only thing to which I'll take exception, like mavarin, is your liberal use of the "only" paintbrush in the third paragraph. That smacks of the same sort of narrow-minded view that leaves you shaking your head at the opinions so many religious types have of atheists.
While I do strongly believe that religion, in general, is a fear-based and -propogating organisation, the earnest worship of a Supreme Being via the trappings of your choice of religious doctrine lacks the sort of inducement that you implied.
Simon
http://simianfarmer.com
PS -- I'm pretty sure these are my favourite kind of your posts, for their engaging topic and the eloquence of your defense. Not to mention the fascinating conversations engendered in the comments.
To be honest, some of the hyperbole in the post is intentional. Comments threads don't get this tasty without a little bit of salt in the recipe.
-Paul
Comment from mavarin: "Well, of course, it's a distortion to generalize that Christians behave themselves only because God says they should, or else. There's also altruism at work, and enlightened self-interest, logic and emotion and cultural sensibility and upbringing...in short, all the usual reasons why anyone tries to do what's right."
Of course, you are absolutely correct, but it's a distortion that Christians perpetuate when they express the opinion that without God everyone would go about raping and killing their neighbours.
-Paul
Comment from teeisme57: "Paul, if the Blue fairies or Pink unicorn work as a moral compass, does it really matter whether or not their existance is substantiated?"
One of the things that concerns, not only specifically atheists, but skeptics in general, is the fact that people who are led to believe in one silly thing without the benefit of evidence, are susceptible to believe in other silly things that are not supported by evidence, like carrot juice enemas as a cure for cancer, or that magnets can somehow improve the taste of one's wine, or that a psychic can help recover a missing child. We would like to live in a world where people are capable of thinking critically about questionable claims, and avoid being taken advantage of by unscrupulous charlatans and shamen.
-Paul
Uh dearest Paul... you just spouted off a whole bunch of lines about 'what Christians do' that basically is the same prejudice you are saying Dianna or others who don't get atheism do to you. Not nice! I am Christian and yet, I believe the Golden rule says it all also, and I do not as you say only hold my morals 'because God tells me to' as you said or does 'only through a fear of hell' do I not covet!!! Dang! I am Christian, I believe in God and Jesus and I do NOT believe in hell. So, don't throw around statments with a big swiping brush like that. If you want to say "some Christians" or those that follow 'church doctrine to the letter' yada yada - okay... but don't think that all do.
catch ya later - going to the pool...
be well,
Dawn
So, Dawn, let me ask you...from whence does your moral conscience originate?
-Paul
Like you, from my humanity. It is what makes sense. You say 'God came after that" For me, I believe that RELIGION came after that... God, the Supreme Being or that 'from which the spark of life originated' was here first.
be well,
Dawn
"I just don't attribute mine to Invisible Pink Unicorns, Blue Fairies on the Moon, or other silly things for whose existence there is no supporting evidence."
And, while I am at it, I find that comment condescending... and a bit unfair to those of us who believe in some kind of Divineness.
be well,
Dawn
<<And the only thing to which I'll take exception, like mavarin, is your liberal use of the "only" paintbrush in the third paragraph. That smacks of the same sort of narrow-minded view that leaves you shaking your head at the opinions so many religious types have of atheists.
While I do strongly believe that religion, in general, is a fear-based and -propogating organisation, the earnest worship of a Supreme Being via the trappings of your choice of religious doctrine lacks the sort of inducement that you implied.
Simon
http://simianfarmer.com>>
Yes, Simon, I am with you on your last sentence, however, it was the use of that "only" and the unicorn fairy comment that ruined Paul's whole answer for me. To me it was like waving the red cape... I forgot about the man behind it and went straight to the cape.
I, personally, was surprised as Paul is usually not so.... (looking for the right word) ...inflammatory and single minded.
be well,
Dawn
And, I am surprised that Dianna didn't call you on that... hmmm I think she must have been very busy today... lol
be well,
Dawn
Wow, Dawn, you've really got it all churning around in your mind right now, don't you. That's good. Keep it up.
I want to address two points you made.
1) I said, "Invisible Pink Unicorns, Blue Fairies on the Moon, or other silly things for whose existence there is no supporting evidence."
You said, "And, while I am at it, I find that comment condescending... and a bit unfair to those of us who believe in some kind of Divineness."
The statement is not meant to be condescending. It is designed to point out that there is as much evidence supporting the existence of God as there is supporting the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns, and Blue Fairies on the Moon. It is intended to make you think about why you believe in some things and not others. If I may quote a statement attributed to one Stephen Roberts: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
2) I asked, "from whence does your moral conscience originate?"
You answered, "Like you, from my humanity. It is what makes sense. You say 'God came after that' For me, I believe that RELIGION came after that... God, the Supreme Being or that 'from which the spark of life originated' was here first."
So, I would like you to answer another question for me. If God is not the agency from which we receive our moral imperative, then what, exactly, does God do?
-Paul
<<<The statement is not meant to be condescending. It is designed to point out that there is as much evidence supporting the existence of God as there is supporting the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns, and Blue Fairies on the Moon. It is intended to make you think about why you believe in some things and not others. If I may quote a statement attributed to one Stephen Roberts: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.">>>
Ahhh but there is what I consider to be evidence. You do not accept it. We will find out who was right some day...
I will answer your next point in a minute...
be well,
Dawn
<<<So, I would like you to answer another question for me. If God is not the agency from which we receive our moral imperative, then what, exactly, does God do?>>>
First, who says God needs to 'do' anything. To me it is enought that He is.
Second, I believe that the 'spark' that began life, and the very source of our universe (whether big bang or other beginning) was from God - for lack of another word for this ultimate source of energy.
By ultimate I mean as defined by Websters 'ORIGINAL <the ultimate source> c : incapable of further analysis, division, or separation'
be well,
Dawn
I'm appalled at dan's vulgar use of the vernacular to label and condemn millions if not trillions of people that he will never meet.
Is this where you are going with this Paul?
natalie
Huh? Vulgar? Oy...
I'll try to be a little more "pleasant" the next time a Bible-addled, pseudo-Christian condemns me to the depths of hell for not accepting Jesus as my personal lord and savior. I'll try not to point out their hypocracy of preaching peace and tolerance while also condemning those who do not believe as they do in the same fucking breath. And, I'll try really hard not to point out their blasphemy in worshipping a book rather than their god. Would you like that Natalie?
Trust me, Jesus himself could come to my door, and I would slam it in his face. And, considering the current state of religion in the world today, I honestly don't think he'd blame me. However, before telling Jesus to piss off, perhaps I will give him a chance to explain why his "Heaven-bound" followers worship in their ten-million dollar bastions of Christian humility while children are dying of starvation all over the world.
-Dan
Dan, You echo my heart felt sentiments. In year 2003 I formally excommunicated the Roman Catholic Church after finding out much of the doctrine was based upon paganism mixed with Christianity and that for at least fifty years, as we know of, pedophile priests were being passed from parish to parish to continue these forbidden acts of immorality and inhumanity; imposed upon the young and innocent. The current pope, Benedict, was found guilty, without a shadow of a doubt of hiding the fact his best friend, a clergy member, forced sex upon young men. He did not deny his guilt but requested immunity from Bush. He was granted immunity as Head of State.
In any event, I sent a letter of excommunication to my parish priest and another to the Vatican. My parish priest told me, my family and friends that I was a heretic and should be burned alive at the stake as befitting a heretic.
How interesting that pedophiles are forgiven and transferred but leaving "Mother Church" is punishable by death.
I'll wager, if there is a heaven, I will be inside the doors before many of these pseudo-Christians and so will you.
I'd also like to say I never make statements I cannot prove.
Dianna
"The Hellacious Heretic"
Exactly Dianna. After all, how many followers treat their religious texts as though they are nothing but an ala carte menu from which to pick and choose only those passages which conveniently support their own hatred and ignorance while tossing aside and ignoring all the rest? Take the pseudo-Christians' use of Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, for example? It's flat-out, bloody hilarious that they would condemn someone with this text when they themselves don't even follow it. Trust me, it would do the world a huge favor if we just said, "Sure, we'll let you display the Ten Commandments in all our government buildings, so long as YOU let us display the definition of 'hypocracy' above the altars at which you worship."
Personally, I think if you believe in a higher-power, it simply makes much more sense to abandon all religious texts and just try to lead a good life of respect, understanding and kindness toward your fellow human beings. It's common sense, and it's a heck of a lot better and easier than spending your life hating and bickering over whose god is the one "true" god. The actual worship is somewhat arbitrary and meaningless when it comes to an omniscient being.
I've read the Bible, and one of the things which will always stick in my mind is when I told someone that I came away with NO hatred for anything after reading it, and he told me that I apparently didn't understand it and had read it "wrong." And this man was a preacher, and he teaches children. And he indoctrinates these children with this illogical, unfounded hatred, fear and paranoia, and in my eyes, that's is the ultimate heresy.
As for the Catholic Chuch, considering its long, long history of continual human rights abuses, censorship and opression in the name of god, I think it's laughable to hear them label someone as a heretic.
-Dan
Interesting conversation! I was making a comment "defending" Christians, and realized it was too long, so I just made an entry in my journal....
http://journals.aol.com/inquestoftruth/InQuestOf/entries/1340
~Meg
Hey Dan, Dianna, :)
imho you are talking chiefly about a. people who live too close to the Vatican City or b. biggoted ministers, or, in Dan's case, c. some kind of strange conglomerate who condemns dan to the bad place etc., who is probably nuts.
Ok people let's talka bout some whoare not certifiable and who are not attached to Roma.
nat
Pualo
no good Christian holds his or her beliefs because the Boogie Man is after them!:):)wink
and then there's that thing about Atheists being bad? nope. (I shake my head in wonder)
Atheists are the people you have not experienced something outside of themselves. And ceratinly nothing totally unexplainable..am I correct?
So Paul it's always a matter or who has experienced what and it is not science
nat
ps so can we leave out the "You're the Bad guys" and "We're the good guys" part please? it's not central to the debate , uh, unless we want to limit this to ..say Rome
nat
Hey Natalie,
I don't know where you live or what religion you were raised in but when you're raised Catholic you are talking Rome. Who do you think dictates the rules and regulations? The Vatican.
Further be advised that the word Protestant evolves from the word "protest" because certain people were protesting against the Roman Catholic Church. However that may be, these "protesters" took many of the false Catholic doctrines away with them and began to practice them as their own. These people, called Protestants, had quarrels among themselves. Thus, they broke up into sects such as the Methodist, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc. All these different sects are still categorized as Protestant today. Therefore, these are all actually OFFSPRINGS of the Roman Catholic Church.
Further be advised that a conversation is like the wind and can blow in any direction. We thank you for trying to dictate us but find it unnecessary.
Dianna
This Christian fears nothing....tries to live right because it is the right thing to do.....finds Christ very helpful when I get in a place where it is hard to do right....and is so very thankful He's there when I fail to do what is right. Morality can in essence be any code of conduct that a society decides to operate under. Much of the moral code of modern civilization reflects the Ten Commandments and other Christian precepts. Even the Golden Rule....."Love your brother as you love yourself" was the second of Christ's two commands for righteous living. People can be very moral and good without God in their lives. But no man, Christian or otherwise can live a perfect life. - Barbara
making the <zippy-lips> motion...
xoxoxo,
andi
Actually Barbara, the moral "code" of modern civilisation has very little to do with the Ten Commandments, and is simply based more accurately on Hammurabi's Code.
And, as for the supposed "Golden Rule" of Christianity, that's nothing but sheer and utter poppycock (Yeah baby! I got to use the word 'poppycock' in a sentence!). Christians don't follow that rule, they never have, and they never will. It contradicts the very foundations of Christian belief. Christians are encouraged and taught to look upon other beliefs as somehow being lesser and invalid. And, when you approach your fellow human beings' beliefs with such unfounded arrogance, how is that possibly viewed as "loving thy neighbour?"
I think the beauty of an atheistic existence is that it encourages more responsibility and personal accountability. Christians, on the other hand, always have a ready and convenient excuse for their actions and attitudes. An atheist can say "I don't like this because I simply don't." However, a Christian will always use the excuse "I don't like this because God says so, and therefore YOU shouldn't like this either. And, if you DO like it, you're going to hell to suffer, but lucky for you God's a forgiving gent, and he loves the sinner but hates the sin and yadda yadda yadda..."
Don't worry though. I see all religions as an anchor around humanity's neck. I mean, take a look at the sheer, pig-headed, comical nonsense coming out of the Catholic church with regards to condom use. So long as you're not using a rubber for birth control, they don't have a problem. The good news with that is you can be flat-broke and utterly penniless and unable to afford a child, but so long as you pretend your spouse is rife with any number of STDs, you get to have sex. I'm surprised the streets aren't packed with countless happy, dancing Catholics holding fistfulls of Trojans
Not all Christians are as Dan paints them. :)
~Meg
Hammurabi's Code
Dan mentioned Hammurabi and his code but many of you may not be familar with this Babylonian ruler or his written laws. I have provided a link for your benefit. Hammurabi was the ruler of Babylon from 1792 BC until his death 1750 BC. (Yes, it works backwards) His laws were written on a 'stela' which stands today in the Lourve Museum.The "innocent until proven guilty" idea comes from his laws. Although some of his codes may seem harsh to the modern reader we must remember that some of the laws from the Hebrew Scriptures were equally harsh. After all, where do you think the idea of burning witches came from? Now "please" don't run out and look for a witch to burn guyz:)
Law 196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out.
(Does this sound familar?)
Dianna
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
But, Dianna? What if this witch weighs the same as a duck?
Sorry... I couldn't resist.
-Dan
Dan... I have no idea what kind of Christians you have only apparently dealt with but the code of a 'Christian' that you describe is equal to exactly '1' that I have ever met. I have many friends that are from a variety of protestant and catholic backgrounds (yes, there are different types of catholics) and none subscribe to what you describe as truth. I am sorry that your experience has been so narrow and disappointing.
be well,
Dawn
A couple of things going on here. One of them resembles the "No True Scotsman fallacy": http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/No_True_Scotsman
Also, I thought Skeptico's most recent article fit in with our discussion here: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2006/06/equivocation.html
-Paul
And here's the ubiquitous, "You sound so angry. You must've had a bad experience to make you this angry. I will pray for you." That gets so old. Rather than address any criticism directly, you deflect it and instantly make these ridiculous, half-assed assumptions about me and my life. The thing is, I'm really a happy person.
I've met a great many very nice Christians. I even have some very pleasant Christian friends. However, the problem I have is that all religions are taught that their way is the right way, and those who are doing things differently are wrong. This usually leads to arrogance.
-Dan
Dan,
I never said, I would pray for you or that I thought you were unhappy. Jeez, you sure do like putting words and beliefs in peoples mouths and hearts! Yikes!
I am Christian but have a lot of problem with formal structured ' religion' too. And, as far as your claim that I didn't state my own my beliefs, if you read in the earlier comments I did!
be well,
Dawn
Dawn, you assume that my experience with Christians has been both "narrow and disappointing," but it really hasn't. I've met some wonderful Christians; however, despite the fact that they are generally good and kind people, they will still tell me that I am destined for an afterlife of eternal suffering in the depths of hell simply because I don't believe as they do. You see, it doesn't matter how good of a person I am or not. I'm not being judged according to my actions, but it's my beliefs, or lack thereof, which are apparently leading me straight to hell in their eyes.
For example, I could run around biting the heads off kittens and kicking old ladies in the face, but so long as I believe Jesus is my copilot and personal savior, I'm still "better" than those damned dirty, immoral atheists and pagans out there who don't go to church.
That's the problem with ALL religions. They NEED their prejudices and they need to see others as being "unworthy" in order to feel better about themselves. The more you think about it in terms of always needing to oppress in such a way as this, the more evil and inhuman it seems.
-Dan
Dan,
Again, not all Christians belief you will damned!!!! I don't! I don't believe in hell!!!
That was point!!!!
Those kind of Christians that believe that horsehockey are not the only ones out there!!!
be well,
Dawn
And, I agree with you about 'religions'. I don't need an intermediary or a set of arbitrary man made rules telling me how, when and why to worship God. I do that myself. And Jesus, whether divine or not, had some life advice too.
You can be a Christian and not believe in hell, you can be a Christian and not follow a specific religion. I know many! I am one...
be well,
Dawn
Ummm.... Dawn?
Just looking at this whole thread and I have to start wondering, what part of your beliefs lead you to still make the claim that you are a Christian?
It would seem you have more points of disagreement than agreement when it comes to Christianity.
I'm in no way questioning your faith in God here.
I also believe in God, but not because of any religion I have encountered (actually, it is more in spite of them).
You seem to be professing to be Christian but setting aside a large number of their major tenets.
I'm just saying...
Brent
So, let me get this straight, Dawn. There is a God, but he doesn't DO anything. The Old Testament is fiction, but the New Testament is truth. You are supposed to believe in him, and worship him, but it doesn't matter how. There is no wrong way to worship or believe. There is no punishment for not believing. There is a reward. If you believe you shall live forever. If you don't, when you die, that's just the end. Which is what atheists believe anyway, and won't be disappointed to find out that it's true. I'm having difficulty understanding why anyone would bother...or even care.
-Paul
<<<So, let me get this straight, Dawn. There is a God, but he doesn't DO anything. The Old Testament is fiction, but the New Testament is truth. You are supposed to believe in him, and worship him, but it doesn't matter how. There is no wrong way to worship or believe. There is no punishment for not believing. There is a reward. If you believe you shall live forever. If you don't, when you die, that's just the end. Which is what atheists believe anyway, and won't be disappointed to find out that it's true. I'm having difficulty understanding why anyone would bother...or even care.>>>Paul
Wow, apparently you all think being Christian means you are born again. I am a Christian because I believe in God and Jesus. According to many bible belters, they wouldn't consider me 'christian' like they are and I am sure I would be damned to their hell as they think you and Dan would be. Whatever, I don't believe that.
It doesn't mean I think the Old Testament is fiction or that the New Testament is absolute truth. I, personally believe in an after life, but not 'hell' the way many 'born again' or certain Christians do. I believe that hell is the absence of God, and that those who are truly evil, will be denied God in the after life. I believe that you, as a good person, you will not be denied God and therefore I will see you in the afterlife as well.
I don't get a lot of you and Dan's assumptions... but that is okay. We can agree to disagree. As I have said to you before, Paul, I don't think anything I say will ever sway you. But it is my beliefs. My parents feel much the same. So, does my hubby. So do many friends we have spoken too!
be well,
Dawn
I'm just trying to suss out where you stand on this God thing, Dawn. So, according to you, even though I don't believe in God, even though I stand on the mountaintop and shout out for everyone to hear, "there is no God," because YOU think I am generally a good person, I'll still go to heaven? Is that right?
-Paul
Not heaven, in a classical sense Paul, but I believe that when you cross over, you will not be denied knowing God. My beliefs are kind of eclectic, but I am not alone in them...
I believe in a loving God, who is accepting of all who are good.
be well,
Dawn
So, how is it that I will not be denied the grace of being in the presence of God?
-Paul
Why would you be denied? I don't believe in that kind of 'vengeful' God. Have you killed anyone? Beaten your kids and/or wife? Been hateful and hurtful to others? No? Then you will not be denied.
It is very simple to me... religion is what complicates it.
be well,
Dawn
My question, Dawn, is who decides if I've been good enough to spend eternity in the presence of God? Do I? Do you? Or is it someone else? Who makes the call?
-Paul
Paul,
I don't believe anyone decides, in an arbitrary way, if that is what you are asking. True evil will not have that comfort when they cross over. You and I both know what kind of people that is....
be well,
Dawn
Yes, Dawn, some people are clearly good people, and some people are clearly bad people, but most of us fall somewhere in between. If might be allowed another quotation in this comment thread, I would like to quote...uh...myself. I once said, "when we stop seeing the shades of grey, we can be fooled into thinking that we have to choose between black and white, and that such absolutes actually exist." ( http://journals.aol.ca/plittle/AuroraWalkingVacation/entries/465 ) That comment was in relation to politics, not religion, but I think it is apt. It is almost impossible to easily separate people into two camps: "good" and "bad".
Jenny once lied to her children when she said their beloved pet didn't feel any pain when he died. John once lied to his mother about how many cookies he had eaten. Felicia lies to her employer about how much time she spends on personal calls. Bob lies to his wife about having had an affair. Sebastian lies with virtually every word that comes out of his mouth, no matter the subject.
Do any of these people deserve to be excluded from God's kingdom after they die? All of them? None of them? A few of them? Which ones? Where do you draw the line? Who draws the line? Who draws the line, Dawn?
-Paul
The problem with heaven is that it's apparently going to be filled with a lot of people with whom I would never want to spend an eternity.
-Dan
Paul,
All those shades of gray are just good people who make mistakes, I don't why you look for it to be so difficult. There is evil and then, the rest of us, so so, floundering along schmucks!
be well,
Dawn
You're still stuck thinking in black and white, Dawn. Except you have convinced yourself that you are seeing creams and light greys, and stainless steel...and black. But you're not. You're only seeing white and black. The thing is, it's a continuum. You have to see the asphalt greys, and charcoals, and the three thousand other shades of grey in between, as well. Where is the line between truly evil, and just really badly misguided? I need you to really think about these questions, Dawn. You've got thieves, and wife batterers, and rapists, and murderers. You've got liars, and adulterers, and those who sell children into slavery. How do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line? What if the thief isn't remorseful, but the rapist is? What if the adulterer is remorseful, but reoffends habitually? Who meets God? Who doesn't? Who decides? These are very important questions, and I get the feeling that you've never really considered them. You have your little, indistinct idea that God is clouds and sunsets and little fluffy kittens, and you're happy to believe that the world is easy to separate into black and white, and as long as you don't ever examine the issues in depth, you can go on wearing those blinders happily, and ignoring the difficult questions that are irksome, and that your beliefs don't really cover.
-Paul
Part Two) In our own country women were accused of witchcraft and tortured until they could not longer stand it and confessed. However, it never occurred to the pious inquisitors that it is precisely their method of torture was responsible for creating those confessions. In 1657 the Congregation of the Holy Office announced that, for a very long time, not a single case of the witch-hunt trials had been conducted properly. In other words, it had admitted that the millions of people who had died under the witch-hunts were innocent!
Yet, not a single word of apology came from the Christians or the Church.
'Twas not good enough the Europeans took away this land from the Indians. Even among the most renowned, famous and outstanding Christian leaders the call for total extermination of the Indians was common. For example, U.S. President Andrew Jackson - after his presidency was over - still was recommending that American troops specifically seek out and systematically kill Indian women and children such as this Kiowa girl of about three years. To do otherwise, Jackson wrote, was equivalent to pursuing "a wolf in the hamocks without knowing first where her den and whelps were."
The Holocaust was the deliberate and bureaucratic annihilation of eleven million people, six million of whom were Jews, by Hitler and his Nazi regime between 1933 and 1945.Adolph Hitler was a Roman Catholic. In his book, "Mein Kampf" he stated, "This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."pp.152
I've always thought I was agnostic but I'm beginning to wonder. I'm confused. Perhaps I'm an atheist. Anyway, if there truly is a god I don't like him and his representatives are evil.
Dianna
I guess I'm only a kid as far as some of you are concerned and my knowledge is also narrow, right? Christianity has always been so wonderful. Pope Urban 11 launched the first of eight Crusades in 1095 CE. Yep, it was the Catholic Church who started all that. Those holy crusaders went forward with a cross in one hand and a bloody sword in the other. In 1212 CE roughly 20, 000 children were sent out to fight for the holy land. This was the Children's Crusade. Almost all died before they got there and very few returned. Over the course of six hundred years, the Catholic Inquisitions sent between forty to sixty-thousand individuals to the scaffold to be burned by the secular authorities. This is less than half the number of abortions done in the United States every month.
Part 1) Hey Dan,
I apologize you were told you had "narrow" experiences. I guess that means I have had "narrow" experiences as well. I guess some people have just had broader experiences and we should listen and obey them. NOT. After being a good Catholic girl for 23 years (Trade Catholic) it was traumatic to find out that the priests who were telling us to love and forgive had a different meaning of love. They were molesting kids my age and younger, Forgive meant shut up. This happened on a world wide basis. I guess I should just love and forgive the fucking priests, right? No thanks. I'll save that bullshit for some imbecile who can swallow it. One kid was at the funeral of his dad who had committed suicide and the family priest was there to "Ahem, support him." He began to fondle the kid. Next day the kid committed suicide too. Many others committed suicide or ended up in mental institutions. But that's a narrow experience, I forgot. My feelings are irrelevant. I should just keep my mouth shut and forget it, right? And what about Pat Robertson the televangelist, supporter of Bush? He stated on TV that Chavez should be assassinated. Robertson is a billionaire and owns race horses. Fine role models we have as Christians here. They all suck.
No, Paul, I do not have a problem with this... you are insisting. I do not have to know where the line is drawn. I believe, as part of my faith, that only the truly evil will be denied God. I will not judge, I cannot judge, that is not my place. I do not know how God has decided it or where any lines are drawn and do not need to know it. All I need to know is that for all of my shades of gray and those that I see in the majority of the people floundering through life around me trying to do their best that a loving God will be there for them when they cross over.
be well,
Dawn
I answered Dianna directly in email because the journals are acting wacky and I couldn't get in
Dawn
I'm not saying you have a problem, Dawn. I'm saying you don't have a problem because you are looking at the situation through Dawn coloured glasses. You pretend the tough questions don't exist, or that you don't have to worry about them. But you have contradicted yourself with this latest comment. Earlier in the thread you said, "who says God needs to 'do' anything." But in this last comment you have allowed that God decides. He doesn't do nothing. He takes an active roll, according to your words, in deciding who will spend eternity in his presence, and who won't.
So, how does he decide? Are his decisions completely arbitrary, or does he follow some consistant criteria? If he follows some criteria, how does one discern what that criteria is?
-Paul
Actually Paul this is exactly what I said - <<<First, who says God needs to 'do' anything. To me it is enought that He is.>>>
I NEVER said he did nothing. You did. I said he doesn't NEED to do anything.
As far as crossing over, to me, everyone does. And, the truly evil are denied God, I do not 'know' for a fact how that happens. I said that all along. Yes, of course, I am looking at it as you say through 'Dawn colored glasses' - I have ALL ALONG said that this is MY beliefs. Isn't that what we were discussing? Our own beliefs?
I don't get into the whole proof thing and all that, because there isn't any. These are my beliefs, the faith I have, the way I worship. I do not subscribe to any church or any man made religion. They are the result of my journey so far through life and my experiences.
That is it... again, I feel, that you are trying to force me to provide proof or something else, and I don't have that, and never said I did. This is just me and mine... and it happens to be that some people I am friendly with or related to feel similarly, and I shared that with you all.
I am beginning to think, I should just bow out now.
be well,
Dawn
I'm not trying to force you to provide proof, Dawn. I know full well that there is none available. What I'm trying to force you to do is to exercise some critical thinking about your beliefs. Each and every question I have asked you has been more important than the last. And the most recent questions, which you did not deign to answer, by the way, are the most important so far. I'm interested to know what you believe. Is there a criteria, or does God just flip a coin?
-Paul
As a further thought, in case I wasn't clear...
I don't need to know His criteria. That is part of my faith.
I have been trying to get my thoughts out while dealing with 3 kids and 2 spares... I guess maybe I am not clear. I reread what I wrote last, and wanted to add the above.
That's all for me, I guess...
And, oh yeah, Paul, if you figured out #39 in Qwyzzle... I am desperate... please share....
be well,
Dawn
Paul,
I believe that question is unanswerable as to how. But, I believe that true evil, true to the root, psycopathic evil reveals itself. Don't you?
be well,
Dawn
Has there ever been someone that was "true to the root, psychopathic evil?"
I can think of some nasty people, but even these people either did some good as well, thought they were doing good, were a product of their times, or had some sort of mental illness (or some combination of these).
"I don't need to know His criteria." You're nicer than a lot of my students. If I assigned a project, wasn't clear on the criteria (or didn't assign them at all!), and then failed some people, they'd be pretty mad at me. :)
I imagine the definition of evil can depend upon your culture and background.
Dianna
Bingo, Dianna! That is the exact point I am trying to lead Dawn to realise.
-Paul
Paul,
Again, I do not need to define it. You keep asking me to do so. I guess that is where my particular leap of faith happens...everyone's is different.
We agree to disagree...
be well,
Dawn
Personal Morality is a good way to put it. For most humans is it the result of thousands of years of design. Some religious some just plain common sense. I as a human know it is wrong to kill. I as a human know it is wrong to steal. If I have been stolen from then the feelings of rage and violation I have will insure that I know not to do it if I am a genuinly moral. All these things are exactly the some for those who do not subscribe to the "moral" side. aka: evil. It is more black and white than anything else. Regards, Bill.
So, Dawn, as long as you do what you believe is right, you are OK with God? And as long as I do what I believe is right, I'm OK with God? Is that what you are saying?
-Paul
Okay.. Paul, now you know it isn't that simple. Let me turn it on to you... how did you come to know what is right and wrong? Or what is evil?
It is something basic, part of our humanity, no matter what who or where you are... I just can't go on in this circle with you. Sorry.
be well,
Dawn
No, Dawn. I don't know. I'm trying to get you to explain it to me. Remember, I'm the atheist over here. I need you to spell it out for me. Use small words and speak slowly and clearly so I can understand. I truly don't get your world view. It does not seem to me to be internally consistent. I'm asking you to help me understand. How do I know if I'm going to be one of the blessed in the afterlife?
How did I come to know right and wrong? My parents taught me some stuff explicitly, and more I picked up via osmosis from their behaviour towards those around them. As for what evil is...it is an abstract concept. The word has no meaning within my world view. Without a God, there is no absolute good and no absolute evil. I don't subscribe to those ideas.
-Paul
That "dead guy nailed to a tree" is an important part of my life and my belief in the resurrection. I do not belittle your belief system. Why would you belittle mine? Is Christ such a hard word to say, or write? What makes you think all Christians read the bible in the same way, or interpret it in the same way? I can allow you your beliefs, or lack there of, but why is it necessary to denigrate mine? This is what I do not understand. If I should find comfort and peace in my faith in God, or a higher power, how do I harm you? And, I don't ask this question so much as an excuse for debate, I am genuinely curious.
http://debbi4873iamstillhere.blogspot.com/
I am still here...
deb
So, you do not see people who kill, rape, and torture as evil? Okay... I guess here is where I just say... I give up! lol
The most important thing to me is not the definition of evil, it is the definition of what is good. If you live your life always working forward from a position of love and respect, then you are doing your best. I try my best to be respectful, understanding, non-judgemental, and tolerant. I learned much like you...
be well,
Dawn
So, you do not see people who kill, rape, and torture as evil? Okay... I guess here is where I just say... I give up! lol
The most important thing to me is not the definition of evil, it is the definition of what is good. If you live your life always working forward from a position of love and respect, then you are doing your best. I try my best to be respectful, understanding, non-judgemental, and tolerant. I learned much like you...
be well,
Dawn
Okay, let me see if I understand this correctly. Primitive mankind made up definitions for good and evil on a trial and error basis along the path of (so called) civilization. Humans don't really recognize (or appreciate) goodness unless they have experienced evil - polar opposites. I recall reading in the Hebrew Scriptures a man's wealth was judged by the number of oxen he owned. If his oxen were stolen he would wear sackcloth and mourn for several days and then go after the thieves. Let's say he did not recovered the oxen. His friends and neighbors would observe his sufferings due to his oxen being stolen and commiserate with him. They would hand this information down to their children, by word of mouth, calling it evil. (Later putting it into the written word) If nothing had ever been stolen to begin with they would be indifferent to evil. Of course, I'm using theft as an illustration here. If no one had ever been killed people would be indifferent to murder, etc. I think this is what you are saying Paul.
Dianna
Wow! What a comment thread! I haven't seen anything like this since I spent time on Praize.com. As for me, I am a Bible thumpin' hell-fire and damnation holy roller and I love it. I don't worship a dead guy on a tree, but the Living God, the True Christ who died for all. I am sorry that others don't feel the way I do, but glad that I live for Christ. Atheism is not an option for me, but I don't argue the right to be one. God gave us freedom of choice. I pray often that my life will reflect the love of Jesus to others. I guess we will all know in time who is right, Paul. If Christianity is all wrong, then it won't have hurt me a bit to believe. If it's right . . .who will be hurt? Blessings, Penny http://journals.aol.com/firestormkids04/FromHeretoThere
Again, Dawn, I reiterate that the word 'evil' is a concept of religion. In the real world, 'bad' is the opposite of 'good.' In the realm of religion, 'evil' is the opposite of 'God.' So, if I don't believe in the concept of God, I cannot believe in the concept of evil. Murderers and rapists are bad, some of them irrepairably so, but they are not evil.
As Dianna touched upon, definitions of 'evil' are culturally based, and change from place to place. What some cultures see as 'evil' others do not. There is no universal truth. Only subjective ones.
-Paul
I do not believe that evil is only a concept of religion, I do not believe that evil is only the oppposite of God. I do concede cultural differences to what is bad, but not to what is truly evil. True evil, the basest crimes against humanity are universal.
be well,
Dawn
I did not understand what was being communicated here at all for a few days.
After emailing Dianna and learning of her suffering and sadness I would liek to say that I am very sorry for that grief. Dianna I do seriously regret the terrible things that those priests have done to children and I hope that they are ignored by the congregation and forced out... I have actually seen this happen and so it should.
Moses and Christ were raised in good Jewsih homes as kids. They did not beleive in harming others for one's good nor in stepping over others for one's good.
Dan I am truly sorry that you have run into some pretentious people who have tried to sell an idea that connected Christ and wealth and getting ahead of others as a truly good basis for atemmple or a church. It was never in teh planning of Moses or Christ fro this to happen. I am sad.
Paul I am so sorry that you think that most Christians are scared of some God force and that they wish you were too. Not part of the plan.
Moses and Cnrist were not popular as promoting status quo at all. Their message of charity, love , kindness and compassion are still alive today.
natalie
Natalie,
I just would like to know where in ANY of my comments you managed to form your opinion and the need to email me to accuse me of being some sort of evil, Jew-beating, Anti-Semite.
On the other hand, it does certainly illustrate the disturbing lengths religions will go so as to place hatred in the hearts of humans where none need exist. And, I'm pretty certain that Paul, as an athiest, could write volumes on that subject alone. I mean, it's not without its irony, after all.
-Dan
Nat,
I found it humorous that you attributed "the plan" to Moses and Christ. Not really what most Christians would put forward.
Dan,
Human beings seem to have an irrational need to separate things into 'Us' and 'Them.' Religion is only one form of that. If religion were to miraculously (heh) disappear overnight, we would find another reason to hate each other in shortr order.
-Paul
Paul, bingo...after many years of observing the morality & belief systems of people both religious & non, starting from an 8 yr catholic education, struggling with what I was supposed to be blind faith in a religion which historically proved itself anything but moral in its own definition; I finally opened my mind to the human race at large, and without prejudice began to reliaze that religion has almost absolutely nothing to do with how "good" of a person human beings are.
Most religions are bigoted by their very nature; anyone who doesnt subscribe to their belief system is a "bad" person, I'm using the simplistic terms of bad and good, because religion is more often then not a very black & white business, no grey areas. To question could very well mean being an outcast, and most people need to belong.
I'll give you a good example. my nephew by marriage is born again, has 9 children, all born at home, all home schooled; they live on an isolated acreage, with little or no contact socially with those not connected to their church. They have no television. However, the children are allowed, and encouraged to play with anything to do with guns, weapons, etc. They do have a computer, which is filled with images of weapons. I wonder what the combination of religion & the encouragement of violence will do to these children.
A friend, who is also a presbyterian minister once told me in answer to my question about someone, that people who serve God are put on pedestals, but, in the end, are just people, and should be seen as such, no better or worse then anyone else.
Great running commentary!
Mary Anne
"If religion were to miraculously (heh) disappear overnight, we would find another reason to hate each other in short order."
I agree Paul and it would probably be politics and nationalism.
Dianna
It reminds me of the running joke that is the KKK, Paul. We would always postulate over how long it would take them to utterly implode if they actually managed to have their way. How long would it take for them to turn on one another in their supposed "perfect, white, Christian nation?" And, in the end, who would be left? LOL!
-Dan
You make some excellent points about morality here, Paul. I, for one, have never questioned the possibility that one can be moral without a commitment to God, and I can assure you that I am not the only Chrisitian in the world capable of truthfully making such a statement.
But I am saddened to see that while complaining about how frustrating it is to be the target of Christians who assume you mustn't have a moral bone in your body just because you reject their religion -- and I'm sure that it IS beyond frustrating -- you take advantage of the opportunity to belittle Christians as worshipping a "sky-daddy" or believeing in something along the lines of fairy tales.
With all due respect, one might wonder where the "respect and consideration for your fellow human beings" and evidence of the Golden Rule is in such statements. After all, you seem to expect Christians to respect your wishes not to believe in what you consider to be unbelievable. But it appears as if you aren't willing to allow those of us who do believe the same respect.
My decision to believe in God does not diminish your beliefs or call your morals into question; your decision not to believe in God in no way diminishes my morals or my beliefs. So why must you attempt to diminish them with your words?
Patrick
http://patricks-place.blogspot.com
Patrick,
Thank you for your comment. While my words, in places, may seem somewhat flippant (entirely intentional here, I assure you), I wonder if you could point out to me any statements I have made that are less than factual. I don't know how deep into this massive comments thread you got, if at all, but I have already pointed out that by suggesting that atheists cannot have any kind of morality in the absence of a belief in God, it is the Christians who perpetuate the view that their only morality is due to fear of God - and 'fear' is their word, not mine.
My point about "Invisible Pink Unicorns," and "Blue Fairies On The Moon," is simply that there is exactly as much empirical evidence supporting their existence as there is supporting that of your, or any, God. If someone professed to you a belief in one of those things, you would probably think they were a little bit silly, wouldn't you?
-Paul
<<I have already pointed out that by suggesting that atheists cannot have any kind of morality in the absence of a belief in God, it is the Christians who perpetuate the view that their only morality is due to fear of God - and 'fear' is their word, not mine.>>
With all respect, the word "fear" in this context has a slightly different meaning. I recently attended a sermon in which the concept of "fear of God" was the primary topic. According to the sermon, at the time the Bible was written, the word that was translated into "fear" was actually referring to a respect that comes through recognition of authority, not a terror that comes from being afraid. When someone refers to themselves as "God-fearing," it doesn't mean that they believe that God is some scary monster, but rather that God is the Supreme Being that is due our respect and reverence.
There are phrases that refer to "law-fearing" people. These aren't people who are afraid they'll drop dead if they run a red light, or think that the law itself is frightening; they simply recognize the authority of the law and do their best to obey it.
A good many of the Christians who "fear" God serve him not because they're "afraid" not to, but because in recognizing God's authority, they feel a duty to follow His laws. Do they fail? Absolutely. And I don't think it would really surprise anyone if I were to suggest that a failure always gets more attention than a success.
For every Christian who has broken the law or crossed moral lines, there are probably hundreds of Christians who have remained faithful to their own belief systems and have dedicated their lives to making the world a better place. To make blanket condemnations of all Christians is to punish the many because of the poor choices of a few.
Semantics is not something I have difficulty with, Patrick. I fully understand the original biblical intention of the word, and why the Christian community has never corrected the translation (a common situation - a significant portion of the bible as we know it today is mistranslated; much of it means something completely different from what we commonly inderstand it to mean).
Condemnation is not what I am doing here. However, I do believe that people who believe in something that cannot be shown to exist, in fact something that the evidence around us suggests does not exist, are self deluded, and are either harming themselves, or having harm done to them by those who are preaching to them. I ask you, would you scoff at someone who professed a belief in "Invisible Pink Unicorns?" Why?
-Paul
http://journals.aol.ca/plittle/AuroraWalkingVacation/
<<If someone professed to you a belief in one of those things, you would probably think they were a little bit silly, wouldn't you?>>
You're frustrated by Christians who assume you must not have morals; yet the way you ask this makes it seem as if you think it's only NATURAL for someone to think this way.
Assuming that I had no personal reason to believe these things might actually exist, I'm sure I WOULD question the belief. But I'd ASK about it, and even if I still didn't agree, I wouldn't set out to belittle them by calling their most sacred beliefs "silly." I could still agree to disagree with them without presuming that their "peculiar" ideas must mean they lack morals.
I have never equated atheism or agnosticism with a lack or morality. Christianity and morality are not synonymous. (But they're not mutually exclusive, either.)
It's worth noting that you didn't mention the WAY in which I learn of this person's beliefs. I don't raise the topic of religion until I feel I know the person very well. I've been friends with agnostics who don't discuss religion: either they don't want to hear about it themselves, or are at least willing to respect my beliefs by "not going there." My friendship with someone is not dependent solely on matching religious beliefs.
I've known others who make it a point to attack or belittle my beliefs just because they don't share them. Is this acceptable?
I've even known a few who made it known during our VERY FIRST conversation that THEY did not believe, and said so in a way to make it clear that they had no patience for those who do...as if they were drawing lines in the sand. But though I have a major problem with this tactic, I don't assume that ALL atheists or agnostics behave this way.
Maybe they've had bad experiences with the last 99 Christians they met. But that's not MY fault, is it? If you auto
-- CONTINUED --
Maybe they've had bad experiences with the last 99 Christians they met. But that's not MY fault, is it? If you automatically assume the worst of ME, are you treating ME fairly? Are you even treating me the way YOU'D want to be treated?
Patrick
I had this conversation last night with my extended family. I am not "treating" you in any way, Patrick. I wrote something in my blog. That's all. If you and I met, and had not previously had this exchange, the subject of religion would be extremely unlikely to come up. Just as you say you don't go around informing people up front that you believe in God, I don't go around in public announcing my atheism. This blog is a place where I express my opinions, and invite discussion, but it does not represent personal interaction. Rather, it is *impersonal* interaction, more like a radio show than a meeting on the street.
-Paul
<<I am not "treating" you in any way, Patrick. I wrote something in my blog.>>
Then I would say that your "characterization" of Christians seems, at times, disrespectful.
It is because we don't know each other personally that I have no way of knowing HOW you'd treat someone in person or how DIFFERENT that treatment would be based on what you say your beliefs are here.
I wouldn't fault you for your opinions, especially those based on your PERSONAL interactions; at the same time, I do point out that some of the things you've said here strike me as being a little unfair. But then when it comes to a blog instead of personal interaction, all that your readers really have to work with is what's on the screen. If what has been written his given me an inaccurate picture of how you'd interact one on one, then I'm glad to know that.
Patrick
hi; I think this is the first time I might be commenting in your journal; was directed over here by someone else. Just want to leave a comment about what I believe.
There are good moral people in the world regardless of whether they believe in the God I believe in and in salvation only through Jesus which is also what I believe in. I think a lot of people think just because they are moral and good that earns them a place in heaven. Frankly, no one deserves a place there but it is only through believing on that person who died on that cross for my sins that I get there. I do things in love like Jesus said "Love the Lord God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself". I don't do things because I'm afraid I'm going to roast in hell for all eternity. My salvation was bought by Jesus; I choose to live my life to glorify Him.
One day, whether you or anyone who cares to read this comment wants to admit it or believe it, we will all stand before the Maker of the universe; the Lord of Lords, the one true and only God. And if our name is not written in His Book of Life as one who accepted salvation through Jesus, we will not be spending eternity with Him. That's the bottom line. Accept it, believe it, live it. Be moral, be good, be just in the meantime, but that is still the bottom line.
betty
What's your point? Your statements add nothing to the discussion we are having here. You are simply proselytising. Can you give me any reason why I should not just delete your comment?
-Paul
like I emailed to you; nope, no reason; delete away. Sorry if I offended you in any way. have a wonderful day. (feel free to delete this one too without having to email me :)
betty
Please no, don't delete it.
This is exactly the kind of thing being debated.
Prime example of the arrogance of religion.
"And if our name is not written in His Book of Life as one who accepted salvation through Jesus, we will not be spending eternity with Him."
So let me get this straight, if I'm a Budhist monk living in Tibet, dedicating my entire life to the study of God and trying in every way to live the perfect moral life....
TOO BAD!!
No Jesus - no entry to heaven.
Ridiculous.
This is the kind of stuff that leaves an atheist frustrated beyond belief when someone of faith questions their morality.
How do you believe something which is, at it's very base, exclusionary to the extreme, and then pass judgement on others as not measuring up??
Belief in God is a personal choice.
No matter how hard some people try to weave it into some kind of science, it will always be about faith at some level.
I have no problem making that leap.
I do have a problem with religions. They all have flaws.
The biggest common flaw is the "Our way is the only way" issue.
Ask yourself this...
If God is as powerful and all knowing as you believe, why would he pick ONE and ONLY one form of worship for a species as diverse as human beings?
Humans cannot agree on the simplest things in life.
The concept of God is complex beyond belief (if you believe) and yet almost all religions expect us to accept "ONE and ONLY ONE" version.
Only a human would believe this would work.
God (if he exists, that's for you Paul) would know better!
Brent
PS - Patrick you never did answer Paul's question.
"I ask you, would you scoff at someone who professed a belief in "Invisible Pink Unicorns?" Why?"
Brent,
My take on the matter is slightly different. I don't have any problem with the idea that God has only one way to come to Him. What I have a problem with is the idea that He only revealed that way to a select few. That's what I find to be Bullshit.
There has been some discussion over at Patrick's blog, as well: http://patricks-place.blogspot.com/2006/07/question-of-morality.html
-Paul
In reference to Brent's comment "Please no, don't delete it.
This is exactly the kind of thing being debated.
Prime example of the arrogance of religion.
"And if our name is not written in His Book of Life as one who accepted salvation through Jesus, we will not be spending eternity with Him."
So let me get this straight, if I'm a Budhist monk living in Tibet, dedicating my entire life to the study of God and trying in every way to live the perfect moral life....
TOO BAD!!
No Jesus - no entry to heaven." --
If one (like me) is to believe the Bible as being the word of God, it clearly says in John 14:6 - Jesus answered "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father except through Me". So, I believe that No Jesus, no entry to heaven. All roads do not lead to God. And I think we need to define exactly what God a Buddhist Monk would be studying as opposed to what God one who calls himself a Christian would be studying and following. I would bet they probably aren't the same God. I also think there is a lot of arrogance in religion and that is why I don't call myself a religious person. I follow Christ; I don't want to be referred to religious with sets of rules and rituals to follow. Been there, done that growing up Catholic. I prefer to follow Jesus and as I emailed to Paul, mankind has totally messed up the simplicity that Jesus said in following him. Jesus said "love the Lord God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself". Boy, if we all lived like that what a world this would be. Instead, over the years, people have put so much more onto Christianity that I don't think Jesus ever intended it to be. Kind of like the Pharisees that Jesus had such contempt for.
(continued in next comment)
betty
(continued from my previous comment)
.......I still hold on to my belief that Jesus and salvation through him is the only way to the heaven that I believe I will be spending eternity at. Perhaps others have a different view of what their heaven will be and what will happen after they die. My sadness is after someone dies and they find out perhaps following Jesus was the right way to go then it is too late to change your mind.
betty
(cont from prev)
Why can't all these various religions be simply about various races' interpretation of God - one God?
All this "Our way is the only way," is pure and simple human possesiveness.
Humans have always felt better about their beliefs if others believe the same as they do and have always have been threatened by those who question those beliefs.
If God exists and he allows only one religion to be the path to salvation, when those that follow the other paths are behaving in everyway, just as morally as those on this one path.... Well then he would be a cruel and stupid god.
Notice I did not capitalise that one.
I know Paul. He does not believe in God at all.
If there is a God and he is just and fair... I will see Paul in heaven just the same, because I know the type of man he is and he would belong.
Regardless of what religions CREATED BY MEN might try to say to the contrary.
Brent
Hi Betty,
Just wanted to say thanks for responding and clarifying your position.
In reality our stance is not really all that far apart.
You recognise that a lot of what the Catholic religion involves, would seem to be add-ons from throughout human kind's history.
I am simply taking what I feel to be one logical step further.
Do I believe Christ existed? Yes.
Do I believe he had divine knowledge? Maybe.
I tend to believe he was one of many men, who felt what he believed to be the spirit of God and tried to relay it to the people around him.
Where I start to have problems with almost every religion is in their demand to be the one and only consideration.
If God is all knowing, would he not know that sending one saviour to a people of many, many races would be doomed to start wars and cause huge divisions?
In my mind, God would be able to recognise the need to send revelations to a wide variety of races to have any chance of success.
That's if God sent these revelations at all.
I think it's more likely that these men were devoted to God and felt inspired to try to help people understand.
(cont next)
Brent
Post a Comment