INTP and hating religion.

[Robert165]

I apologize if I offended you.

well, thank you. i appreciate you saying that. but how else would you expect some to feel, besides being offended, if they were told they were going to suffer and go to hell forever, because they had the wrong idea about god than you did??? seriously.

 

[Sniffles]

What's bullshit? Certainly not Christianity!?

Well that is a sarcastic play on Tertullian's famous phrase: "I believe because it's absurd."

Here's the rest:
"The Son of God was crucified: I am not ashamed--because it is shameful.
The Son of God died: it is immediately credible--because it is silly.
He was buried, and rose again: it is certain--because it is impossible."

 

[Robert165]

What if I did believe that? Would that make you more or less inclined to want to believe it too?

but the point is you don't. how come the only way you can defend yourself is by talking about silly hypotheticals you don't even believe in????

 

[Haphazard]

I think the point is with Robert's thing is that infinite punishment for finite crime seems ridiculous because, well, I could get hit by a bus tomorrow and not have a chance to reconcile anything with God. How is that fair? I'm very young, not even legally an adult, not mentally and emotionally mature. Judging me on just this very short lifetime, through ages where one is very likely to be thoughtless, just seems... well... unfair.

 

[Robert165]

I think the point is with Robert's thing is that infinite punishment for finite crime seems ridiculous because, well, I could get hit by a bus tomorrow and not have a chance to reconcile anything with God. How is that fair? I'm very young, not even legally an adult, not mentally and emotionally mature. Judging me on just this very short lifetime, through ages where one is very likely to be thoughtless, just seems... well... unfair.

you're right. but no religous person wants to feel that their beliefs are wrong. no matter what evidence is presented. thats how you wind up with one of the follwing defenses:

1- my god is god and can therefor do no wrong
2- it may seem unfair but god is fair and its a mystery that only god understands

 

[Owl]

Hey guys, I don't want to overstep my bounds or anything, but I question how much good's being accomplished at the moment. How would you all feel about putting a damper on the conversation for a bit and leaving it for later?

OK?

I'm just thinking of the idea of Christianity being a prosthelytizing religion. It would seem that by prothelytizing, Christians are actually doing the rest of the world a disservice.

If ignorance of the gospel weren't harmful, then Christians would be doing the world a disservice by proselytizing.

 

[Lark]

I think the point is with Robert's thing is that infinite punishment for finite crime seems ridiculous because, well, I could get hit by a bus tomorrow and not have a chance to reconcile anything with God. How is that fair? I'm very young, not even legally an adult, not mentally and emotionally mature. Judging me on just this very short lifetime, through ages where one is very likely to be thoughtless, just seems... well... unfair.

OK, OK, I've only read this page and I'm not going back through the entire thread, so please dont think I'm targetting your post in particular I'm just going to use it as representative of a particular point of view.

OK, please, please, please can we dispense with the anthropmorphism? God is not a bearded old conservative who sits in the clouds dispensing rough justice capraciously for the most minor of offenses. This perspective is ancient, its existence is a legacy of the development of humankind, culture and psyche (perhaps of God too if you believe Jung's reckoning about reciprocity between God, his creation and humankind).

Its only popular now with the adversaries of religion who find it easier to argue with a non-existent worst possible or degenerate variety than what is really there.

There is no infinite punishment for finite crimes, God is a perfect paragon of proportionality, how do I know because its repeatedly indicated that God is Just and that is what it is to be Just. When humanity was made up of warring tribes capable of no proportionality in their vengence God's law was discerned to be an eye for an eye, now in more civil times we can tell that would leave everyone blind but it sure beats the lives of an entire village for an eye, you know? Later when God put in an appearence as Jesus he outlined his own practice of unmitigated forgiveness, generosity and love. That's the norm.

There's no one condemned to hell who has not done it to themselves!! Imagine you have a hatred for a specific sort of person would you really want to spend any time with them? No, hell is the abscence of God, the abscence of God's love or any love and for whatever reason the people in hell want it that way, either its not enough or its not what they want for one reason or another but they condemn themselves to their condition.

Its the same as were a prisoner to seriously reflect upon their actions and consequences they could be rehabilitated and have their freedom, most of them find excuses or just prefer the way of life that results in their incarceration and its simple as that.

So far as punishment for sin goes, the crimes of a life time, those, in my faith which my reason and revelation I know to be correct, are dealt with by the purifying process of purgatory.

 

[Lark]

you're right. but no religous person wants to feel that their beliefs are wrong. no matter what evidence is presented. thats how you wind up with one of the follwing defenses:

1- my god is god and can therefor do no wrong
2- it may seem unfair but god is fair and its a mystery that only god understands

If I switch a couple of words this is as easy to say about anyone, rationalists or the irreligious too. I'm not just talking ideologues here either.

The reality is that in "debate" you seek to persuade yourself, that's why these sorts of forums are popular, when you get to the point of common ground and dialogue it gets interesting but we're a long way off that and until then its all a bit of a game. Real life's like that too.

 

[Night]

some people may embrace lies. but rejecting the christian god on a moral basis has nothing to do with embracing a lie. in fact, the opposite. it means you have a concince.

Take this in the spirit in which it's delivered, Robert, but I don't think you have the pipes to argue for/against faith - either as a psychological choice or spiritual ideal.

Throughout this thread, it's become increasingly clear that your stance develops an opinion of theological reason from a variety of unchecked rhetorical positions - early on, you endeavor to create a (false) empirical platform by cherrypicking biblical selections to cater to your personal narrative of faith-based thought.

From here, you work to include - forgive me - profound generalizations concerning the nature of your opposition: specifically biblical text.

Then, after being refuted for dishonest citations, you rotate your defenses and switch to an emotional tug-of-war between your individual beliefs (specifically concerning the nature of Hell) and the intimate beliefs of your adversary.

Not that it necessarily matters to you, but as a third-party observer, I'm forced to conclude that you've only read snippets of the Bible and purposefully warped context to match your preformed suspicions, instead of trying to illuminate an honest, falsifiable framework.

I think you have a great deal of analysis yet in wait, Robert - beginning with a basic analysis of what it means to be an atheist. What's more, you seem clueless as to what constitutes quasi-mainstream (Read: non-fundamentalist) Christianity. Concerning oneself with a thoughtful approach to truth is one of the highest intellectual goals in life. Dividing idealism from reason is a rare gift.

I respectfully submit that this gift remains yet outside your reach.

 

[jenocyde]

"Fairness" is a man-made construct and God (or whatever deity you believe in) never promised to be "fair". And also, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not "fair".

In addition, Christianity is not the only religion on this planet. To condemn all faiths because you don't understand one particular faith is ignorant and hardly "fair".

 

[Ginkgo]

i dont like church and i think religious people are idiots. thinking this way seems to be a function of being intelligent. and speaing of intelligence, whats really sad is that small percentage of really bright people and all the excuses and rationlizations they make i order to "keep believing".

This mindset is born from a groupthink that is no better, nor more rational, than those who follow religiosity without question. 'Tis tribalism.

Ask questions. Try not to be presumptuous please.

 

[Haphazard]

"Fairness" is a man-made construct and God (or whatever deity you believe in) never promised to be "fair". And also, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not "fair".

In addition, Christianity is not the only religion on this planet. To condemn all faiths because you don't understand one particular faith is ignorant and hardly "fair".

I am asking about it because I don't understand it and it is something my religion doesn't seem to do.

@Night: I think the reason Robert only knows about Fundamentalists is because they tend to be the loudest.

 

[Snow Turtle]

I am asking about it because I don't understand it and it is something my religion doesn't seem to do.

@Night: I think the reason Robert only knows about Fundamentalists is because they tend to be the loudest.

It seems hardly fair to assume that because they take some of the worst parts of the bible literally, that they are then the honest and correct interpretations of the bible. I don't see the logic behind that at all. Just the mindset with the belief: Someone makes grand claims about themselves, there's a chance that they are just lying. However when switched with the other scenario: Why would someone make such negative statement about themselves and reality? They must be telling the truth. Why? Because it doesn't make sense for people to push forward a negative view of reality when human nature desires a positive environment.

If he wants to believe that the fundamental approach is the true approach to christianity. I'm afraid that he'll have to prove it with some evidence or logical argument. The one above does not constitute as a logical argument unfortunately because the reality may be that the most harshest sounding descriptions may not be true. It'd be wrong to assume based on that reasoning.

Multiple times he ignored Larks message that the things written in the bible has been channeled by mediums and prophets, that it has authority but might still have an element of interpretation within it. Ignored the fact that the bible has undergone many translations/written by man even if divinely inspired/further work written by man based on earlier interpretations of those who were divinely inspired and lastly ignored the possability that the bible may have had sections added to it/removed from it that were not originally there. Considering it's been 2000 Years... there's alot of things that could have potentially gone wrong there. For this reason, there are christians (though they are probably seen as the cherry-pickers or not being christians) who while believing in God, don't believe that the bible contains the whole truth about his nature.

The whole thing about conscience is just... meh. Considering that so many different people have different ideas of what is considered as moral or not. For example: Some people believe deep within their hearts that an eye for an eye is an acceptable form of justice.

The just-world phenomenon, also called the just-world theory, just-world fallacy, just-world effect, or just-world hypothesis, refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is just so strongly that when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault.

While others believe it only creates further problems in society and doesn't generate peace. But I'm sure most people here know that, we are in the philosophy section after all. It's the very basic study of ethics. =/

 

[jenocyde]

I am asking about it because I don't understand it and it is something my religion doesn't seem to do.

I'm confused about this post - what exactly are you asking about in response to what I wrote? The fairness? Which part doesn't your religion do?

 

[jenocyde]

I am asking about it because I don't understand it and it is something my religion doesn't seem to do.

@Night: I think the reason Robert only knows about Fundamentalists is because they tend to be the loudest.

Sorry, I guess you are talking about the concept of judgment?

I am no expert, and I don't think any of us are, but with Christianity I think the general rule is that you are judged on not only the sum of all your actions but the sum of your intentions. Meaning, what's in your heart.

If you were hit by a bus tomorrow after having robbed a bank, I don't believe that means you will go straight to hell. I think you are judged as a complete person. In some sects, there is a period of repentance and purgatory. In some sects, entry into heaven requires accepting Jesus as your personal savior. But I think everyone agrees that a person who is generally good, even after doing something "bad", will not burn forever.

But that's just what I have observed from the different groups. I could be wrong.

 

[Haphazard]

I'm confused about this post - what exactly are you asking about in response to what I wrote? The fairness? Which part doesn't your religion do?

The fairness of prosthelytizing. My religion doesn't do that. It seems with prothelytizing, you have two scenarios:

1. the gospel is important for salvation, and therefore those many, many people who did not know about it for a long time after it was written (pretty much, anyone outside of the Mediterranean for a long time) were unfairly punished because they were ignorant, not by choice, but by place and timing

2. The gospel isn't important to salvation and is only if one knows about it (by virtue that those who are ignorant cannot be blamed), so therefore spreading the gospel would be considered a disservice because you were causing more people to not reach salvation because they wouldn't accept the gospel (they had been living happily for hundreds, maybe thousands of years without it, it's only natural that they be skeptical.)

 

[jenocyde]

The fairness of prosthelytizing. My religion doesn't do that. It seems with prothelytizing, you have two scenarios:

1. the gospel is important for salvation, and therefore those many, many people who did not know about it for a long time after it was written (pretty much, anyone outside of the Mediterranean for a long time) were unfairly punished because they were ignorant, not by choice, but by place and timing

2. The gospel isn't important to salvation and is only if one knows about it (by virtue that those who are ignorant cannot be blamed), so therefore spreading the gospel would be considered a disservice because you were causing more people to not reach salvation because they wouldn't accept the gospel (they had been living happily for hundreds, maybe thousands of years without it, it's only natural that they be skeptical.)

Ahhh, yes. I have had the same questions myself. Unfortunately, I cannot answer any of that, since I don't belong to an organized religion.

As far as scenario #1: As easy as it is to praise a "creator", many Christians believe that salvation is only through accepting Jesus, not through good behavior. As a child, I spent countless hours wondering what happens to people who were raised by wolves (or something similar) and loved and respected the nature that surrounded them but never heard the name Jesus. Would they burn?

I still don't know the answer to that question, and I don't think anyone does. I'm sure everyone has their theories.

My father is really religious and he feels that yes, those people will burn. that's why he feels it's his duty as a Christian to spread the word to every and any one. He can't sit back and let people perish. Because he was enlightened, he can't sit on that knowledge and not try to save everyone he can.

Whether it's fair or not, that's the way it is, in his eyes. He figures that God has reasons that are way beyond our comprehension.

And scenario # 2: I think people who try to spread the information feel that they are spreading joy. That's ok, you may not go to hell if you don't know the words of Christ, but that you actually won't find fulfillment in this life on earth either. I think they think they are doing you a favor, the same way that people were excited about the spreading the internet or drive thru atm's or clean drinking water.

But I could be wrong. I truly don't know.

 

[Snow Turtle]

Ahhh, yes. I have had the same questions myself. Unfortunately, I cannot answer any of that, since I don't belong to an organized religion.

As far as scenario #1: As easy as it is to praise a "creator", many Christians believe that salvation is only through accepting Jesus, not through good behavior. As a child, I spent countless hours wondering what happens to people who were raised by wolves (or something similar) and loved and respected the nature that surrounded them but never heard the name Jesus. Would they burn?

I still don't know the answer to that question, and I don't think anyone does. I'm sure everyone has their theories.

My father is really religious and he feels that yes, those people will burn. that's why he feels it's his duty as a Christian to spread the word to every and any one. He can't sit back and let people perish. Because he was enlightened, he can't sit on that knowledge and not try to save everyone he can.

Whether it's fair or not, that's the way it is, in his eyes. He figures that God has reasons that are way beyond our comprehension.

That certainly is quite an interesting view to hold. Rather than rejecting the view that it's not compatible with a loving God, he accepted that God had reasons for letting these people perish?

Hm... I could certainly imagine how that might work. People that perish motivate other people to spread the news and live accordingly. It's kinda cynical of human nature though, that you need people to fall before others will help, but at the same time when I think of the news and everything. I can easily see how it holds true.

Then there's the other theories as suggested about how people who don't know are given the opportunity to acknowledge God upon their death, or if too young, sent to a different location... Yeah.

Were those just theories or were they based on interpretation from somewhere within the bible? Maybe someone can explain where these ideas come from.

And scenario # 2: I think people who try to spread the information feel that they are spreading joy. That's ok, you may not go to hell if you don't know the words of Christ, but that you actually won't find fulfillment in this life on earth either. I think they think they are doing you a favor, the same way that people were excited about the spreading the internet or drive thru atm's or clean drinking water.

But I could be wrong. I truly don't know.

Perhaps it's similar to the whole eastern religion concepts where while one might not end up perishing, you won't reach fufillment without knowing the truth. When you think about it from a religious point of view, is going into limbo-land really that much better than going to hell? If you assume that the greatest thing is to be with God. So yeah, what you wrote up there definitely makes alot of sense.

 

[onemoretime]

"Fairness" is a man-made construct and God (or whatever deity you believe in) never promised to be "fair". And also, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not "fair".

The idea that God isn't fair is a man-made construct, as well

 

[Eric B]

Another view I've been looking at lately says that all the age ended in AD70, and when the temple was destroyed, the Law that condemned man passed with it. (So all the "turn or burn" warnings were really for the people in THAT age; many of whom saw Jesus rather than hearing about him thousands of years later through the lens of a tumultuous Church history). This would explain the passages where Jesus said the Coming would be "soon", and that they were running a race to "salvation".
Problem is, it seems like another "unorthodox" novel interpretation. Still, it seems to be the only one that explains all these questions, and makes it truly "Good News".