Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christianity is an idea. It competes in a "marketplace of ideas". As a Christian you probably do not think of it this way particularly, as for you it's the only idea you entertain. But especially apart from someone like me who used to be an insider, most outsiders have no built-in reason to see Christian dogma or theology or truth claims as having any more inherent standing than any other random idea, and would not necessarily be more familiar with it than any other random idea.
So can you see how someone coming into contact with Christianity in that fashion would find notions like "blasphemy" or a certain ... shall we say, sensitivity ... to any sort of critique of Christians or Christianity generally would seem to be a demand for respect for an idea that hasn't actually been earned?
The problem I see is that the church is accustomed to enjoying the benefits of certain taboos such as the concept that to express skepticism or distaste for certain aspects of your faith, to argue against basic tenets of your faith, or even to require acceptable evidence before you'll consider believing it, is blasphemy or sacreligious ... or, as you put it, "wrong".
It is a fine line, of course. I am generally careful about gratuitous verbiage. I can convey the simple fact that i don't believe in your deity without using terms like "sky wizard". Some people choose to be more acerbic, and in literally ANY other realm of discussion (except maybe, these days, politics) that would not be occasion for the pearl-clutching I sometimes see in Christians.
More generally, my experience has been that Christian's malfunction with unbelievers isn't so much that we don't believe (though it's that, too) as that we're not impressed or that we're indifferent to the things that thrill you. As a former believer, I understand this better than some atheists. I know how "into" certain things I was, how impressive they were to me, vs now, and I can imagine my former self being aghast at my present self, I suppose. So I tend to dial it down most of the time, unless a theist is being a booger with ME and I'm inclined to see if they can take it and not just dish it out.
So I guess what I'm asking is, what is wrong with expressing what appears to me to be a valid general observation about Christians just because it is -- maybe not even unflattering, but just not admiring? How much do you really expect me to walk on eggshells? I'm just trying to get an honest feel for this.
Do you think there is truly an eternal pit of fire or is there more of a "life review" of feeling what all their victims felt and eventual constant reincarnation until soul perfection?
This is a very interesting question.
The fundamental answer is, "We don't know", because none of us have an empirical after death experience.
However, I think it comes down to using 'philosophy' when we try to tackle this natural human curiosity of what's after death?
And we are left with using the oracle of faith (regardless of whether we are believers or non-believers). We analyze and study all different kinds of philosophical theologies and religious doctrines to form a faith, to believe or not to believe as what happens after death?
That's one dot.
Dot Two
When we look at the universe, we notice that things are based on reciprocals. And things seems to balance out.
If there is left, then there is right, if there is up then there is down. If there is a day then there is a night.
Even the logic in Newton's third law sort of supports this observation.
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
The universe won't seem to be able to survive if it didn't have the reciprocals. A since there are reciprocals then,
"If there is injustice, then there is justice".
So the question arises, if a victim of tyranny receives injustice but law of the land does not provide justice to him, and he dies, then how is he going to get justice?
If a tyrant does injustice to others and dies without facing justice, then how would he justice ever be done to him?
Looks like the logic behind newton's third law, seems to be failing here?
Now if we look at ALL other faiths EXCEPT ONE, we notice that every religious doctrine promises a no question asked spot in heaven if you believe in that particular faith. (regardless of how big of tyrant are you).
For example, Jews believe that they are the chosen ones, so there is no hell fire for a Jew. According to Jewish philosophy, Ariel Sharon is in heaven.
Christians also believe that Jesus is the one way and the only savior. You believe in Jesus and you are through. So according to them Ariel Sharon is in hell fire.
Hinduism has various philosophies - "reincarnation until soul perfection", which doesn't make sense because if a soul gets reincarnated, then why is the world population growing?
Where are these billions upon billions of new souls keep getting added into the loop reincarnation?
Ideally, the world population should have never increased, or it should have been decreasing as each soul meets the level of perfection, and is taken out of the loop. This theory of reincarnation, in my view, falls apart pretty easily.
However, when it comes to believing in the Islamic faith, then we see that it meets the reciprocal theory and satisfies the logic of Newton's third law.
It says, there will be a day of judgement where tyrants will face the justice REGARDLESS of whether they are followers of Islamic faith or not - and regardless of whether they are Christians or Jews or followers of any other religion of if they are atheists or agnostics. Justice WILL be rendered to them, and there won't be any place to run and no place to hide.
So if we are to believe in this religious doctrine, then yes, wrong doers and tyrants will face justice on that day. And depending on their acts of tyranny and acts of doing injustice to others, they will face the consequences accordingly.
The victims will also be compensated accordingly. And things WILL even out.
Again, it's only a theory and a philosophy - whether some believes in it or not, is their free choice to make. And I don't have an issue with it.
Atheists; however, seem pretty hopeless when it comes to trying to answer the OP.
Yes, we don't know what's after death - but then Atheists also, don't have any hope that justice will be served to tyrants because logically speaking, only the entity that knows it ALL and has power over ALL and EVERYTHING, can render the absolute justice - and that entity, according to faith, is only God.
Last edited by GoCardinals; 03-12-2022 at 07:33 PM..
When we look at the universe, we notice that things are based on reciprocals. And things seems to balance out.
If there is left, then there is right, if there is up then there is down. If there is a day then there is a night.
Another reciprocal pair is birth and death.
You wonder what happens to you after you die. Do you ever wonder what happened to you before you were born?
If your soul has always existed, what makes you separate from God? If your soul was created, should it not be destroyed at some point according to reciprocal logic?
How does a forever afterlife jive with being created at some point and reciprocity?
In your atheistic worldview with no God and no objective morality, is there something 'wrong' with dictators, child molestors, serial killers, etc.?
By what standard are you using to define 'wrong'?
I'll let Shirina give her own answer, but she is on and off here, so I'll just say that my response would be "human empathy". Empathy is the ability to model how others (or your future self) will / would be benefitted or harmed in response to your actions in the world, and to then take those thoughts into account as you regulate your own actions. This comes, physiologically, from mirror neurons, and philosophically from the understanding that we are all interdependent, that if one hurts, all hurt.
A holy book or a deity is not needed to want a sustainably better world, a civil society, equity, justice and so forth -- or to figure out how to promote those things and work against incivility, inequality, injustice and unsustainability.
I'm kind of tired of people claiming to have a superior moral code and then not producing a better world from it. If the religious think they can do it, for example, they should knock themselves out, posthaste. But I suspect they'll continue to fixate on proselytization and the notion that it automatically fixes everything else. Given that even a broad-brush ideological definition of "Christianity" hasn't even captured half the world population in 2,000 years and is currently loosing "market share", neither proselytization nor its supposed knock-on effects are going to save us.
I'll let Shirina give her own answer, but she is on and off here, so I'll just say that my response would be "human empathy". Empathy is the ability to model how others (or your future self) will / would be benefitted or harmed in response to your actions in the world, and to then take those thoughts into account as you regulate your own actions. This comes, physiologically, from mirror neurons, and philosophically from the understanding that we are all interdependent, that if one hurts, all hurt.
A holy book or a deity is not needed to want a sustainably better world, a civil society, equity, justice and so forth -- or to figure out how to promote those things and work against incivility, inequality, injustice and unsustainability.
I'm kind of tired of people claiming to have a superior moral code and then not producing a better world from it. If the religious think they can do it, for example, they should knock themselves out, posthaste. But I suspect they'll continue to fixate on proselytization and the notion that it automatically fixes everything else. Given that even a broad-brush ideological definition of "Christianity" hasn't even captured half the world population in 2,000 years and is currently loosing "market share", neither proselytization nor its supposed knock-on effects are going to save us.
What you are suggesting is that the "seeds" of human empathy inseminated by religion have not only germinated but have grown considerably within human society rendering the obsolete "seed inseminator" superfluous. But each new generation of "soil" needs to be planted, mordant. What is your replacement for the obsolete or increasingly inefficient religion inseminator?
What you are suggesting is that the "seeds" of human empathy inseminated by religion have not only germinated but have grown considerably within human society rendering the obsolete "seed inseminator" superfluous. But each new generation of "soil" needs to be planted, mordant. What is your replacement for the obsolete or increasingly inefficient religion inseminator?
Probably just like religion it comes from within humans. Regardless of your wordly assertions, all human emotions can be explained without your hodge podge of science and God with Jesus added for whatever reason.
Probably just like religion it comes from within humans. Regardless of your wordly assertions, all human emotions can be explained without your hodge podge of science and God with Jesus added for whatever reason.
There is nothing...not what is "within humans", "outside of humans", humans themselves, or anything & everything else...that isn't by & through God.
There is nothing...not what is "within humans", "outside of humans", humans themselves, or anything & everything else...that isn't by & through God.
Only your opinion, not a fact.
No one can possibly know if there are any gods or not.I
Apparently in your mind any disagreement with religion is an attack, and any disagreement with atheists is fine. Your double standard noted and dismissed.
No one can possibly know if there are any gods or not.I
Apparently in your mind any disagreement with religion is an attack, and any disagreement with atheists is fine. Your double standard noted and dismissed.
It's a fact...unequivocal, irrefutable, and self-substantiating/validating.
The God I perceive objectively exists...and anything and everything is by and through said God.
No one can possibly know if there are any gods or not.I
Apparently in your mind any disagreement with religion is an attack, and any disagreement with atheists is fine. Your double standard noted and dismissed.
If I am hip to the fact that God objectively exists...of course, it is only logical and reasonable to disagree with Atheism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
