[TrashMan]

You've missed the point completely here. You're asking for two massive changes. You're asking for the world to be all Christian and you're asking for humanity to be ideal. It's actually the second one of those which would have the effect of reducing war and making the world a better place but you're trying to kid yourselves that it's the first one.

And youre assuming the fist one would have NO POSITIVE EFFECT WHATSOEVER?

As for schims - different "branches" of chistianity are coming closer together recently, becoming united.
I don't know if you read the news, but they are closer then ever before, and some are starting to get integrated into the Catholic church.

[TrashMan]

How? Christianity is no better on paper than any other religion. In fact if I had to pick a religion that was likely to bring about world peace Christianity would be quite far down the list. The central tenets of for instance Buddhism (karma and search for truth) are much more likely to have that effect than the central tenets of Christianity (devotion to single omniscient deity).

Christianty preaches love to your fellow man. So any true follower would indeed try to bring peace to the world.

A untrue follower of whatever religion you can think of can allways mess up everything. The same holds true for Budhists too.

I always laugh myself silly at such simple thinking. The question is always posed as a binary choice. God exists or he doesn't. It is nowhere near that simple. Suppose Allah is the true god and Christians go to hell while atheists go to limbo? Suppose the Hindus are correct? The Buddhists?

ERm...Allah = Christina God = Jewish God.

They are all the same bloke, we just call him by a different name and have a few different rules and ceremnies. That is all.

What if the bible is a test and you're supposed to use it to arrive at your own morality and think for yourself instead of slavishly following something you were told to do? What if THAT's how you get into heaven?

This makes no sense.  Not everyone can be right about their morality. If God made the bible as a test, then you acknowledge that there is a God. He also set some moral guidelines. If your own moral you came to yourself conflicts his, why would he reward you for it??

And slavishly?
Well if it makes you feel better thinking that you're somehow more free than a Christian, knock yourself out. Whatever rocks your boat dude.

[karajorma]

ERm...Allah = Christina God = Jewish God.

They are all the same bloke, we just call him by a different name and have a few different rules and ceremnies. That is all.

Do you honestly think I didn't know that? 

But what if Allah is only letting Muslims into heaven and he's pretty pissed off at you not getting the change of name card he sent ~1300 years ago? Not to mention worship one of his prophets as if he were divine?

This makes no sense.  Not everyone can be right about their morality. If God made the bible as a test, then you acknowledge that there is a God. He also set some moral guidelines. If your own moral you came to yourself conflicts his, why would he reward you for it??

I've always found it laughable that Christians insist that God works in mysterious ways and yet refuse to acknowledge the possibility that maybe, just maybe, he wouldn't then have had a great big book with all the answers in it in cleartext.

What if some of the stuff in the bible is meant to be there to teach you valuable morality lessons while other stuff is meant to be a test to see if you've understood the lessons?

[TrashMan]

I don't isist that he works in mysterious way.

And I understand what you mean. In a way all people are coming to their own moralit,y but ig God doesn't leave us any guidelines, then it would be cruel for him to punish those that came to the wrong morality, and unfair not to punish them.

So what I'm saying is that God left more than enough guideines, so you cna't realyl arrive at you OWN morality and expect to be correct. You can only arrive at HIS morality and still be correct, no?

[Mav]

I always laugh myself silly at such simple thinking. The question is always posed as a binary choice. God exists or he doesn't. It is nowhere near that simple. Suppose Allah is the true god and Christians go to hell while atheists go to limbo? Suppose the Hindus are correct? The Buddhists?

ERm...Allah = Christina God = Jewish God.

They are all the same bloke, we just call him by a different name and have a few different rules and ceremnies. That is all.

Uh, I really don't want to get too involved here , but I just have to point you at the fact that you completely ignored Hindus, Buddhists and whatever else religions there might be...

Oh and "unfair not to punish them"? I thought one of you just stated he loves all of them?

And if god is so far beyond our comprehension (as someone stated a bit back in this topic), how should "his" (that word alone is making a picture, wasn't this somewhere in the bible said to, uhhm, rather be not so good an idea?) morality not be alike? So we would have to forever strive for more understanding - and STILL not get there?



Oh, welll - I guess I already posted far too much...

[TrashMan]

Oh and "unfair not to punish them"? I thought one of you just stated he loves all of them?

I you do completely the opposite of what He wants...then yes, some punishment is in order.

[Mav]

Well, that doesn't answer the other 2 points...
And what you think "what is in order" can be completely thrown off with my 3rd point (though I have to admit - ANYTHING can get thrown off by that point if you leave it valid... not that I'd want to [well, mostly - I have to admit thinking about that point now and then, but usually don't come to much conclusions yet] , it's derived from your arguments, not mine)

[karajorma]

And I understand what you mean. In a way all people are coming to their own moralit,y but ig God doesn't leave us any guidelines, then it would be cruel for him to punish those that came to the wrong morality, and unfair not to punish them.

Assuming for the moment that God exists, and that the bible is not a literal guide to morality but a test then yes I agree that it would be completely unfair for God to expect people to arrive at a suitably valid morality on their own. However if this was the state of affairs then it could easily be argued that the clues are there.

That being said the purpose of the test might not be to actually arrive at God's chosen morality so much as to try. It's an accepted part of Christian doctrine that to avoid sin is an impossibility but that it's the act of trying that is important. Could be this was similar.

So what I'm saying is that God left more than enough guideines, so you cna't realyl arrive at you OWN morality and expect to be correct. You can only arrive at HIS morality and still be correct, no?

Ah but why would a supreme deity have only ONE morality? Let me give you an example by going to one of the most divisive issues I can think of. What if both pro-choice and pro-life stances can be moral? What if what gets you into the afterlife is not which position you take but why you took it? If you're pro-life because you believe that the rights of the foetus take precedence over the rights of the mother then you get in. However if for a second you believe that women who got themselves pregnant deserve to have have to carry the child as a punishment then you're out.
 Similarly if you were pro-choice because you don't care if the foetus is a life then you're out. If you're pro-choice because you're sure it isn't and the feelings of the mother should be respected then you're in.

The choices that got you in were examples of following teachings of Jesus (Love thy neighbour being the principal one I'm thinking of) that every good Christian says should be followed. The two that get you kicked out of heaven are examples of following dogma and red herrings in the bible or simply not giving a damn about the guidelines that should be followed.


Now I'm not getting all religious with the above. I simply find it funny that although almost all Christians, Jews and Muslims are prepared to reject parts of the morality of the bible (keeping slaves being one of the ones that immediately leaps to mind) very few are prepared to go a little further and ask if the entire point of the bible was to do that.

[TrashMan]

Interesting...I'n a way you're right.

The reasons behind ones decisions are of immense importance. But so are the decisions themselves.

To put it simply, both the reasons and hte action have to be right for you to be fully right, no?

[karajorma]

Yep, you can do the wrong thing for the right reasons for partial credit though. But nothing would be gained by doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Intent would surely be a much larger deciding factor than outcome.

So being a good Christian just to get into heaven or avoid hell wouldn't work either. You'd have to be a good Christian for sake of being a good Christian.

[Snail]

Heeehee... You can tell who's got the swearing censors on...

[G0atmaster]

And what made you assume I haven't?

Your argument that it is a matter of a simple binary choice between belief in God and atheism is a foolish one. You'd first have to prove that Christianity is the only religion worth converting to, that it is above every other religion in the world. But if you did that you'd have succeeded in converting me at which point your argument (better known as Pascal's Wager) becomes moot anyway. That's why it's foolish. Not because belief in God is foolish but because the point at which you can claim that the choice is binary is the point at which it is no longer a choice at all.

Nothing made me assume you hadn't, nothing about that was meant to address you specifically.  It was meant to answer your question about an ideal atheist society being equal to an ideal Christian society.

What if?  What if Christ really did rise from the grave?  What if he did really forgive sins as he claimed?

Fine. Prove it. And I don't mean quote at me from the bible as if it must be true.

I'm sure you've heard all kinds of things about what atheists believe but the fact is judging from your responses you've probably never actually argued with someone who is a weak atheist (or even heard the term). The fact is that most atheists are weak atheists. That doesn't mean we say that God can't exist. It means that we say that there is simply no proof that elevates any religion above all the others so the only sensible point of view is to assume that they are all wrong until proof is found.

So yes I've considered that what if. Have you honestly considered that you might be wrong? Have you actually researched the other religions to prove that they are correct? Have you done so fairly and objectively without starting from the point of view that your particular sect of your particular religion is correct?

Cause I mentioned that Christianity was no better earlier and all you could do was quote the bible at me. If you had done that you should be able objectively state why Christianity is better than other religions. Cause right now I'm hearing nothing more than Christianity is better cause I believe it's true and therefore this stuff I believe to be true says it's better. That's a circular argument at best.

What?  I understand that non-christians operate on a completely different belief system than I do, and I understand that quoting the Bible to someone who doesn't believe it's true is in most cases useless.  However, in the context of what I said from the Bible, I was showing you the part of the Christian belief system that is strictly against violence towards others.  And greed.  Etc.  I was simply showing why what Christians believe is, if anything, pacifistic.  And FYI, I was an atheist, once.

And as far as proving to you that Christ did walk out of his tomb, that this is a real thing... well, if you don't believe the testimony of more than 500 people, the best I can do is show you my life, what I was and what I am, and the change that's come about as a result of the work of Christ in my life.  Beyond that, I have nothing for you.

But if you wanna get  back on the original topic of this thread, go ahead.  If you wanna keep up with this, that's fine too.  I'll leave it up to you.

But then, i'm an atheist, and as such you can rest assured that i'll probably burn in the agonizing pits of Hell for entertaining such terrible, terrible thoughts. Y'know, exercising my free will to not believe in a religion. The Bible may extol the virtues of free will, just not too free, y'know?

Man, I have no idea where you're getting that Christianity =/= Free Will, but it is COMPLETELY off-base.

If God were against free will, why would He even allow you the concept of there being no God?  Ponder that for a while.

[karajorma]

What?  I understand that non-christians operate on a completely different belief system than I do, and I understand that quoting the Bible to someone who doesn't believe it's true is in most cases useless.

Yet in your answer you've still failed to actually answer the questions which brought you into this thread (i.e why the world would be better if it were all Christian rather than any other religion.) and have continued to post those quotes as if they were somehow proof. They aren't. A Muslim could quote the Koran. A Jew could quote the Torah. Would you accept those quotes as proof that an all-muslim world would be more peaceful?

The only religion I can see proving that their religion would make the world more peaceful is Rastafarism. And then only cause everyone would be too stoned out of their heads to fight at least 6 days a year.

If you can provide empirical proof that you're correct go ahead. But you yourself have admitted that it's a waste of time trying to use scripture as empirical proof. So stop. Find something else.

  However, in the context of what I said from the Bible, I was showing you the part of the Christian belief system that is strictly against violence towards others.  And greed.  Etc.  I was simply showing why what Christians believe is, if anything, pacifistic.

What Christians believe is a whole spectrum ranging from outright genocide to unbelievably non-violent pacifism depending on the individual and the environment. And both sides can quote the bible to prove their arguments. What you're saying is that the world would be a better place if everyone took the good parts of the bible and ignore all the stuff about stoning people. That's fine. But you can make that argument with any religion because you're not just asking for everyone to be Christians. You're asking everyone to be the peaceful kind of Christian.

Now you have to prove that your idealised Christian is somehow more likely to bring about peace than an idealised Muslim or Buddhist or any other religion (well maybe not Satanist. I think we can be easily convinced that a world full of Satanists ideal or not would not be more peaceful).

And FYI, I was an atheist, once.

Just out of interest what kind of atheist were you. Cause I remember reading a survey once in which 3% of atheists said they believed in God. Which did nothing other than proving that 3% of the people asked what religion they were would probably have ticked the box marked Pizza if only there had been one.

And as far as proving to you that Christ did walk out of his tomb, that this is a real thing... well, if you don't believe the testimony of more than 500 people, the best I can do is show you my life, what I was and what I am, and the change that's come about as a result of the work of Christ in my life.  Beyond that, I have nothing for you.

Then you have nothing. I can show you Muslims, Buddhists and a whole host of other people who turned their lives around cause of their conversion. You've not proved why your conversion was better than theirs. I'm sure they could argue just as passionately that their religion is better.

[TrashMan]

Yep, you can do the wrong thing for the right reasons for partial credit though. But nothing would be gained by doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Intent would surely be a much larger deciding factor than outcome.

So being a good Christian just to get into heaven or avoid hell wouldn't work either. You'd have to be a good Christian for sake of being a good Christian.

Well, I'm not so sure about the last one.
There's nothing wroing with wanting to go to Heaven really, soif that desire results in you doing good things, I see no problem.

After all, you can't spend your life doing good things unless it's not that hard for you to do them (as in - it fist your persona).
You can act like somone else and go against your "true" self for a while, but you ultimately can't keep that up.
Thus a person who sepnds his whole life doesng good things, becouse he wants to go to heaven, has done so also becouse he didn't have any problems being a good person in the first place.

[TrashMan]

Yet in your answer you've still failed to actually answer the questions which brought you into this thread (i.e why the world would be better if it were all Christian rather than any other religion.)

Hm...There area few religions that could be practicly as good as Christianity (in the above sense or a more peacefull world).

I can think of a few advantages it has tough:

1. Christianity is highly ordered. There exists a clear "chain of command" and hiaerarchy. Thus it makes it far more difficult for a priest or bishop somewhere to just start claiming something that goes contrary to the "higher-ups" and get away with it.

Something like what happens in the Middle East, where some Imam can convince a bunch of people to blow themselves up for Alah, despite the fact that other imams denonunce it, could not happen, simply becouse of it's structure.

2. Different parts of Christianity are coming togeter and the trend is increasing. Christinaity is slowly uniting.
At hte same time some other religions have strams that are tearing eachotehr appart (take a look at Iraq again, and the two groups, the Shiaa nad the Suunit (did I spell this right?)) 

What Christians believe is a whole spectrum ranging from outright genocide to unbelievably non-violent pacifism depending on the individual and the environment. And both sides can quote the bible to prove their arguments. What you're saying is that the world would be a better place if everyone took the good parts of the bible and ignore all the stuff about stoning people. That's fine. But you can make that argument with any religion because you're not just asking for everyone to be Christians. You're asking everyone to be the peaceful kind of Christian.

Erm..not really. Christianity denounces and fight vilence, it's what the Church preaches.
Anyone who calls for "outright genocide" as you put it can't call himself Christian.
Well, he can, but he isn't.
It's like a Klu Klux Clan member calling himself the follower of Marthin Luther King.

[karajorma]

Well, I'm not so sure about the last one.
There's nothing wroing with wanting to go to Heaven really, soif that desire results in you doing good things, I see no problem.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to go to heaven but if you're doing good things just to get in then it's unlikely to count.

For instance donating all your money in your will to charity cause you won't need it after your dead so it might as well help you get in is likely to be regarded as a lot important than donating much smaller amounts when you're alive and can actually feel the loss.

[Ghostavo]

Erm..not really. Christianity denounces and fight vilence, it's what the Church preaches.

Erm...

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

[TrashMan]

Dunno..after all, you're still making sacrifices willingly and forging a btter world in the process.

Wanting to go to Heaven actually IS a very good thing. It's a powerfull motive and nothnig to be ashamed of. And it's practilcy impossible to be hte ONLY motive, for the reasons I stated before.

[karajorma]

I even gave you an example of the sort of act I was on about.

Donating your money to charity after you die can be done for completely selfish reasons.

[G0atmaster]

Actually TrashMan, I do somewhat disagree with you here.  True following of "The Way" is done out of a love for Christ.  Yes, Heaven's a great place, and I wanna go there, but that's not why I do what I do, and that makes all the difference.

It's not about what you do, Kara.  Christ died for me, He can't love me any more than that, no matter what I do.

Erm..not really. Christianity denounces and fight vilence, it's what the Church preaches.

Erm...

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21

The entirety of the Old Testament is meant as an example to how incompatible with sin God is.  Where it exists, it must be eliminated.  When Sin happens, something has to die.  This is illustrated throughout, whether it's public execution, atonement sacrifice in the Temple, or whatever.  Until Christ came.  He was the final, ultimate sacrifice, the end-all for death as a result of sin.  He changed the causality of Sin=Death.  So that no longer applies, not because Christ made it no longer true, but because he fulfilled it ultimately and entirely.