[The E]

I intensely dislike Dawkins.  (See, once again:  Epicurius Quote thread)  He knows nothing of how many religions work.  There are no 'sacrifices' in my religion.  Granted that may or may not be true for others, it isn't for what he is talking about.  Fighting and dying for him is a matter of circumstance, not a dedication.  Yes it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on His not existing.  Then again, it could be said that we will all die in the next ten minutes because of a gigantic meteor.  Saying it in no way makes it true.

I apologize if I seem preachy.  This guy pisses me off.

No apology necessary. After all, that's what he likes to do. (I sometimes believe he does it on purpose, just so that believers have someone that infuriates them as much as, say, Televangelists infuriate some Atheists)

EDIT:

However, since living according to the ten commandments has worked so far, I see no reason to stop.

It's impossible to know if it's worked until the end.  And what makes taking that extra little faith in Christ so difficult? (legitimate question, not trying to convert anyone)

I was raised as a skeptic. Accepting the existence of God requires a leap of faith I am not able to make. After all, I have never personally felt Gods' presence in my life, or heard reliable stories of people who did. There's also the point that I believe that if God existed, free will would cease to exist. (That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.)

[Scotty]

Could you explain that last bit of reasoning?  It intrigues me, especially since I'm usually the one who has to explain something in these threads.

[The E]

Right...According to the Bible, God is all-knowing, and all-powerful. Being all-knowing, he knows about everything going on in the Universe. Thus, he becomes Laplace's Demon, able to see the present and accurately predict the future.
Free will, on the other hand, is the ability of a sentient being to do something totally unexpected. However, once we introduce God, the "unexpected" ceases to exist, as HE already knows what you would do with your free will. The question is: If someone knows (not suspects, knows) what you will do at any point in your life, do you actually make decisions, or do you just act according to a script?

Another point: The mythology built up around God tells us that God does, occasionally, intervene in the lifes of his followers. Why do it? Why do it in a way that is so ambiguous? Why choose a "chosen people"? Why abandon them? Why allowing several incompatible versions of the same core beliefs to coexist?
(That last bit is me ranting, excuses for that. However, I'd like to see your answers to that.)

[karajorma]

And what makes taking that extra little faith in Christ so difficult? (legitimate question, not trying to convert anyone)

Why Christ? Why not Muhammed or Buddha or Rama or Zeus or .......

Cause you're a Christian you can no doubt provide lots of examples why your religion is better but so can every other religion. To someone without religion they all seem equally good or equally bad for the most part.

But even if Christianity was the only religion I still wouldn't take that leap. Faith in Christ requires that I accept as true something I can not know is true. That's simply not the way I choose to view the world.

[Scotty]

I see it more as God seeing what actions someone could take, not what they necessarily will.  Sort of like playing chess, millions of moves in advance.  He is all-knowing, meaning not just what you will do, but whay you can do.

I see our definition of free will differs slightly as well.  It is not the ability of a sentient being to do something unexpected, but rather to choose what course of action it takes.  Then, even if God is introduced, free will still exists.  Given your argument about acting according to a script, if I know that someone is going to die, or go to school, or something like that, does that mean they have no free will?

Another answer:  because of free will.  God chose his people, and they strayed from Him.  The incompatible versions are an expression of our free will.  We choose what we do, and believe, to some extent.

EDIT:

Why Christ? Why not Muhammed or Buddha or Rama or Zeus or .......

Because we were talking about his following the Ten Commandments, not the eight-fold truths or the five-fold path, or reincarnation (Rama is not a Hindu god, by the way.  He is one of four mortal incarnations of Vishnu, who kills the Rakshasa king Ravana in the Ramayana, according to Hinduism).

[karajorma]

The ten commandments apply equally to Judaism and Islam too.

Yet you asked him why not Christianity as is that was the only choice.


Simple fact is that the other religions have concepts very similar to the ten commandments anyway. 

[NGTM-1R]

If you believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, then you are a Christan. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, therefore they are Christians. Acting like they're not is like acting like Ford is not really an automobile company because you don't like the stuff they make.

I'd argue this point. The LDS church, for example, claims to be a Christian sect, but they reject so much Christian doctrine it's hard to take it seriously. (Calling the Council of Nicea "the great heresy" does not help.) Under this definition they would fall under Christian headings, but doctrinally they tack on other things like personal divinity that raise serious issues.

[The E]

Another answer:  because of free will.  God chose his people, and they strayed from Him.  The incompatible versions are an expression of our free will.  We choose what we do, and believe, to some extent.

So, free will condemned millions of people to hell because they believed in the wrong version of christianity?
But this assumes that somewhere out there is a true version of christianity. What will you do when it turns out that your version isn't the right one? It's not like judgment day will have an appeals court, is it? You do everything you can in order to be right in the eyes of God, but how can you be sure without any sort of feedback mechanism?

Oh, and the ten commandments thing? I chose that particular ruleset because it is one of the few things in the Bible that actually works in everyday life, even after 2000+ years of memetic mutation. And they work without bringing anything supernatural into the mix.

[Scotty]

free will condemned millions of people to hell because they believed in the wrong version of christianity?

Where did this come from?  Show me where in the Bible it says you have to be a such-and-such denomination of Christianity or you go to hell.  That is probably one of the places I disagree with most if not all denominations.  Believing and having faith in Jesus, and not being an alltogether evil person (I claim anti-nitpick here.  You all know what I mean.  Morals are not the debate at hand.) are most necessary IMHO.

What will you do when it turns out that your version isn't the right one?

I prefer to think of myself as non-denominational.  Feel free to choose a denomination if you want to.  In the early days of Christianity, there were no denominations, and I for one, agree with that.  It doesn't really matter which one, as long as the two above prerequisites are met.

[The E]

Sorry. I seem to have gotten some earlier comments in this thread associated with you. I'll try to not let that happen again.

[Ghostavo]

The whole "being a non-christian doesn't mean you go to hell" raises the following question.

What are the rewards of being a christian assuming the christian god is real?

[Flipside]

Part of the problem is that a lot of religions have trouble accepting that other religions have the same rules, i.e. 'Leave the club, spend an eternity in suffering'.

If someone thinks their eternal soul is in danger, not only is it hard to convert them, but they would rather kill, or die, than be converted.

Because of the fact that almost every religion has a general rule of 'convert the unbelievers' running alongside that belief, the outcome of every religion following its holy book to the letter it's lots of killing or dying.

The world would be a much better place if every Holy Book had said something like 'Tolerate the unbeliever, and treat him as you would a brother, for your kindness will place more of God in his heart than your hatred.'.

[Polpolion]

If you believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, then you are a Christan. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, therefore they are Christians. Acting like they're not is like acting like Ford is not really an automobile company because you don't like the stuff they make.

I'd argue this point. The LDS church, for example, claims to be a Christian sect, but they reject so much Christian doctrine it's hard to take it seriously. (Calling the Council of Nicea "the great heresy" does not help.) Under this definition they would fall under Christian headings, but doctrinally they tack on other things like personal divinity that raise serious issues.

LDS is pretty out there, but off-hand I myself would call them Christian. Even Jehova's Witnesses. I dunno... I was always told that the only thing that could make you Christian was whether you believed that Jesus was the Messiah or not. I really don't remember all that much about the terms to know whether "prophet" or "messenger" or whatever counts, or even what LDS specific stances are.

[TrashMan]

And you are 100% correct  .  Blasphemy, according to Wikipedia (I'll get a better source next time):

"Blasphemy" may be used by extension to describe any display of gross irreverence towards any person or thing deemed worthy of exalted esteem.

Blasphemy in general and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit are not one and the same. "Blasphemy against Holy Spirit" is more of a phrase, a manner of speach and it does imply a VERY serious offense.


@Scotty...really. Read the quotes from the Bible and think a bit.

The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"

 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

More direct, it is impossible for man to save himself, it must be through God.

But of course. God created heaven and the afterlife. Naturally you are saved trough Him and His grace. It doesn't say anything about you having to believe in Him.

and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

Mostly the second part of the verse.

And what does "love the truth" mean here? See the problem? You people keep repeating it again and again. I really don't need to continue.

[TrashMan]

The whole "being a non-christian doesn't mean you go to hell" raises the following question.

What are the rewards of being a christian assuming the christian god is real?

I'd assume you get there easier.  A discount on your sins? You get a "get out of Hell free" card? Get to a higher level of Heaven?

[Scotty]

And what does "love the truth" mean here?

The Greek writing of the verse is

2 Thessalonians 2:10
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Β΄ 2:10

καὶ ἐν πάσῃ ἀπάτῃ ἀδικίας τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις, ἀνθ' ὧν τὴν ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἐδέξαντο εἰς τὸ σωθῆναι αὐτούς. 


ἐδέξαντο in Greek is to receive, but also to accept or take
ἀγάπην in the above is Greek for love, but may also refer to benevolence or charity.

literally, it does say to love the truth, but it can also mean to accept the charity, presumably of God through Jesus.

Does that answer what it means?

[maje]

well, this thread has turned out to be civil barring a few nutty posts.
I'm curious if anyone that has negative views on Christianity or religion in general has actually read their respective holy books through and through.  I, self-admittedly have not, or at least not in any serious manner, so I feel a bit inadequate to respond to quotations that which I am not aware of the context.  Though aiming to rectify this, I have read through the first three books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus), and plan on going through the rest of the Old Testament, and then the New Testament.

So far, my favorite passages were in regards to Cain and Abel, and Joseph (son of Jacob, i.e. Israel) of the Book of Genesis.  The concept of slavery among the Israelites is also interesting with regards to treatment and general laws (yes, Exodus and Leviticus both depict laws regarding the purchase of slaves as well as the conduct that must be accorded to them).  Since my knowledge of other ancient cultures is limited at best, I'm unaware if there were similar laws to say, this one: "When you purchase a Hebrew slave, he is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year he shall be given his freedom without cost." Exodus 21:2.  I note that the text is pertaining to male, and not female, granted she is not excluded.  Probably something worth looking into if for no other reason than clarification purposes.  After all, I'm only reading a book who's gone through so many translations, I could simply be wrong.

Anyways, there are some other things of interest such as if a man destines a female slave for his son, she must be treated as a daughter, or if he takes another wife, he can't simply deny her food, clothing, or conjugal rights (upon which she would be freed if denied).

There are other laws in there as far as striking a slave may result in their freedom depending on how severe the injury is and according to what type.  Exodus 21:20-21, and Exodus 21:26 come to mind.

Considering I have yet to start the Book of Numbers, these laws may yet be nullified in later books, similar to how the sacrifice of animals stops after Christ sacrifices himself on the cross.

With regards to man needing God's grace in order to be saved, you have to understand, this isn't an arrogant statement as one might perceive it to be.  When you consider that the very nature of man is flawed and imperfect, it would be wise to not place all your hopes and faith into man.  If man was perfect and not in need of God, we sure wouldn't have produced such great 'heroes of moral authority' such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong!

[Rian]

With regards to man needing God's grace in order to be saved, you have to understand, this isn't an arrogant statement as one might perceive it to be.  When you consider that the very nature of man is flawed and imperfect, it would be wise to not place all your hopes and faith into man.  If man was perfect and not in need of God, we sure wouldn't have produced such great 'heroes of moral authority' such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong!

The fact that you can name those people and know that everyone in the room will agree they did terrible things indicates that human beings are capable of knowing good from evil without being told by a god, at least given sufficient time and perspective.

[Scotty]

But what horrible price does that sufficient time and perspective cost?  I can think of about 45 million things just between those three named.  You also missed his point.  He is saying that humanity is not perfect, and giving examples, not trying to say we don't recognize evil.

[maje]

The problem here is that humans don't always agree with what is right and what is wrong, and because of that, you come across different ideas of what constitutes as being moral.

To Hitler and the Nazis, eliminating the handicapped and disabled was a humane endeavor.  After all, it would be cruel to allow someone the pain of knowing that they are outside the norm, so therefore they must be spared the unending torture of their lives and laid to rest.

Is this really moral and good?  And if not, why?

The idea that man CAN be God is absurd because man is forever making mistakes proving his own fallibilty.  Therefore to place all of one's faith in man or a man is recipe for disappointment and in certain cases ruination, as is the case of Nazi Germany.

It is not enough to know that something is bad, but to know WHY it is bad, lest one keeps finding themselves in similar negative predicaments with similar negative results.