Opera Nut

It also gives you the idea that once you accept the idea that

a) you are a worthless sinner, and

b)accept Jesus as your savior, because the need to be saved was created by the doctrine of original sin; then

c)your sins are magically washed away; (get saved) and thus:

d)Jesus will protect you as part of his special club of the saved; and

e)you will be part of the lucky club of folks who just KNOW they're goin to heaven because their preachers tell 'em that all the time; and

f)that others who are heathens and non-TRUE CHRISTIANS will roast in hell for all eternity; which gives a delicious sense of schadenfreude to those TRUE CHRISTIANS.

Besides, if they think heaven is so *&^%$ wonderful, why don't they just all kill themselves so they can get there faster????

GrandDesigner

Something else I find interesting is those who follow the Book, or say they do, to the letter. I believe one of the commandments is to not worship any false idols before God. But I thought of a funny possible scene.

God would be standing around, reading a newspaper, and some people are there. God looks up and says "hey...its me...I'm God...I'm right here". Those people would open their Book and point out that this or that has to happen before God comes and until those 'events' happen, they wont believe God is present. Then God would ask what the God in that Book would do if people were to, say, worship some idol before God and they'd say "It says God is a jealous God and we would feel his rath(sp)". God would look at them and laugh, probably, and go back to reading his newspaper. Oh, God resembling George Burns, of course. But it strikes me funny that being so attached to that Book is in essence holding onto a possible false idol.

Grand Ol Designer

winstonjen

Don't you mean the fate he decided for us?

Darth Dane

But it strikes me funny that being so attached to that Book is in essence holding onto a possible false idol

Nicely discovered, yes it is indeed possible, and even likely




DD - Love Spliff

Sabine Grant

Opera Nut... Bonjour. you mentionned in another thread your " humanistic and atheistic values". How can you reconciliate humanistic ideology with your perception of the " world being random and scary " that is if the word " world" applies to the result of mankind's actions?
Does not humanistic ideology entrust mankind with a higher degree of goodness than christianity does? It is the crucial point that Mageth is making here.... that mankind is demeaned in its potential for goodness by christianity.

MAGETH : your approach is what I consider a humanistic analysis where you express your validation of the potential for goodness for mankind. Which I assume makes you a person who will attempt to look for what can be positive in other individuals. Is my perception correct? I must say that I do value the aspect of humanism which can lead a humanist to focus on what can be positive in others rather than charge them with their failures.

Sabine Grant

MAGETH : I will also add that my personal struggle with other christians is the need to bypass the principle of grace when dealing with other people who fail to meet our expectations.

Which brings another thought... if you are familiar with the teachings of Christ, he promotes the application of grace for his followers when dealing with the " beam in the other person's eye". That principle is based on introspecting our own failures so that we may keep ourselves from demeaning the potential another person may have. In other words, it relates to our own humanity. Some theists may cry out blasphemy to what I am about to express.... but could there be a touch of humanism in the teachings of Christ?

Can you think of any common ground in the desire to seek for what is positive in others?

Radorth

Re Opera Nut:

Well no. If we were worthless, God would hardly have permitted his son to die for us, even though, BTW, Jesus willingly decided to do so.

We need no "original" sin to have need of a savior. We seem able to invent plenty of our own, and in some ways ours are much worse and more plentiful than some of our forefathers. IMO, two or three twentieth century atheists have been the most "worthless sinners" in history, if that were possible. But of course Jesus died for them as well.

True, although "magically" is the wrong word since there are clear conditions. And guilt is washed away as well, for those who get it. That's what makes Christianity utterly unique. And not only are they "washed away" but you lose the desire to commit them and thus enjoy a great deal more freedom to make better choices than in the past. BTW, do you think Christians should feel MORE guilty than they do, or less? I'm get a lot of contradictory messages from skeptics on that subject.

Except a billion Catholics who, if you ask them, will tell you "I hope so." It's slightly more complicated than that. We all know Jesus said that some who think they are Christians really aren't. They have to be wearing a "wedding garment" since they have no righteousness of their own. Fortunately one can admit they need to put on the righteousness of Christ, so dearly earned for us at Calvary, in their dying moment- another unique feature of Christianity which self-righteous people find so repugnant.

Well no, that isn't true either. I find no pleasure at all in the thought, nor do I think anyone here really does. And of course I have never said all unbelievers will roast in hell, nor do I believe it. It's not in the Bible with the possible exception of one single scripture, an obvious interpolation added to Mark. There's hope for everyone, even the lowly Rad, who has been here judged a "worse witness than Hitler."

Nice try though, er... well maybe not.

Rad

BioBeing

Mageth :notworthy: your response to this (Magus55's post) was pretty much exactly what I would have said (except you are much more eloquent)! Thanks. I do want to add, though...

Did/does your God only have one mortal life to give? Could an omnipotenet God not just create another "child"? Maybe a daughter this time - that would be novel! She can explain all the apparent sexism in the bible. Why is he limited to just one?

Did Jesus/God get NOTHING out of it? How about 2 billion worshippers? Does that not make it selfish?

No I cannot grasp the concept. And, with all due respect, your explanations do not help me to grasp the concept. The bible does not help me to grasp the concept - hence I call it a poor guide. If it were a good guide, it would be self-evident. I would grasp the concept.

Mageth

Bonjour, Sabine:

Does not humanistic ideology entrust mankind with a higher degree of goodness than christianity does? It is the crucial point that Mageth is making here.... that mankind is demeaned in its potential for goodness by christianity.

I think the good/evil dichotomy imposed by the Abrahamic religions has brought nothing but grief to the world, particularly because it's applied as "We/our God is good, you/your god then must be evil. We are the Chosen; you are the condemned." One only has to look at the situation in the Mideast and at the rise of terrorism in the name of "us" to see that. And it's ironic that the three major religions involved all allegedly serve the same OT-based deity, but each call him by a different name.

These religions deny, implicitly or explicitly, the commonality of humankind, the universality of the human condition. They seek to force on us the concept that each of us is of worth only if we follow the precepts laid down by their particular righteous deity as interpreted by their holy men. (I deliberately left off "and women", because these religions are male-oriented with masculine deities and rarely let women play a part - another example of their demeaning nature).

MAGETH : your approach is what I consider a humanistic analysis where you express your validation of the potential for goodness for mankind. Which I assume makes you a person who will attempt to look for what can be positive in other individuals. Is my perception correct?

For the most part. I've got a bit of a Zen view, recently fueled by reading Joseph Campbell. I think that there is potential within each of us. We each should look within for our guidance, for our "spirituality", if you will. There's no external, personified deity out there to rule us, save us or condemn us. What "saving" is to be done is to be done by yourself, for yourself.

And that "saving" is realization of yourself as a human, not saved or condemned by something out there, but with inner potential to realize a fulfilled life, to give meaning to your life, and to follow your "bliss", as Joseph Campbell says.

And at the same time, recognizing the same thing, the same humanity, in others. Doing this opens your heart to compassion. When that happens, the Golden Rule is no longer something given as "law" by an external deity, but a natural response of one's inner awareness of the oneness of humanity, expressed outwardly in a charitable, kind, loving life.

Note that, at the same time (and this is a very Western concept), one retains one's individuality, and respects the individuality of others. This allows each, if they desire, to follow her own path, rather than to follow a "path" or "way" dictated by teachers (as is common in many Eastern religions).

I must say that I do value the aspect of humanism which can lead a humanist to focus on what can be positive in others rather than charge them with their failures.

A very good point. One recognizes that what's in you is also in others, including the potential for failure. So one can learn to respond to failures with compassion rather than condemnation. (Christ, actually, is a good example of this, too seldom followed by today's Xians).

MAGETH : I will also add that my personal struggle with other christians is the need to bypass the principle of grace when dealing with other people who fail to meet our expectations.

I'm not sure I get your meaning here. If you're saying we need to apply grace when dealing with other people, then see above - such grace follows naturally from compassion.

And maybe part of the problem is imposing expectations in the first place...

Which brings another thought... if you are familiar with the teachings of Christ, he promotes the application of grace for his followers when dealing with the " beam in the other person's eye". That principle is based on introspecting our own failures so that we may keep ourselves from demeaning the potential another person may have. In other words, it relates to our own humanity. Some theists may cry out blasphemy to what I am about to express.... but could there be a touch of humanism in the teachings of Christ?

Absolutely, but I think it's more than just a "touch"! I personally view Christ's teachings as originally directed at self-realization of the inner life, at recognizing the Christ (or Buddha; same concept) that's within you, and recognizing the Christ within others. "The kingdom of god is within you." I think the whole guilt/sin/repentance/salvation from without bit is a later addition meant to organize a Religion and enforce external control.

Another thing to recognize is that failures are not necessarily "bad". One should view one's, and others', failures as opportunities to learn, to improve oneself.

Can you think of any common ground in the desire to seek for what is positive in others?

I think an outline is contained in what I wrote above. The first thing to recognize is that each of the world's great religions already has the concepts of grace and compassion in its teachings; they're just not applied or are overridden by contrary teachings or zealotry. These teachings (such as the one you mentioned by Christ) should be sought out and stressed as core teachings to be followed in one's life.

Another thing is to dispose of the concept of original sin and corruption of the human spirit. How can one recognize the positive in others if one's worldview tells you they are by nature sinful and unworthy?

Another thing to do, of course, is to dispose of the "us/them" aspect of religions. How can one recognize the positive in others if one's chosen religion tells you they are, because of their chosen religion, to be feared, and possibly even evil? Ideally, this would require serious reworking of or even disposal of the exclusive religions. This is probably undoable from the top down in today's world, so the task becomes a bottom-up job.

And I'd highly recommend you read some Joseph Campbell, if you haven't. "The Power of Myth" and "An Open Life" are good places to start.

Cojana

From what I gether from responces about Jesus dying for your sins, you all that believe that will be rubbing noses with Hitler on your after life, and all those insidious criminals whom have inhabited our country, remember that guy that kidnapped woman then would tear thier nipples off with a pair of pliyers? he'll be there too with you, isn't that wonderful,? you can ask him why now, and don't forget those pediphiles whom rape 4 year olds,then murder them as a climatic discharge, isn't that wonderful, Jesus death at work, Magnificent,!!!