A Question of Christian Theology (1 Viewer)

[aequrico]

hey tommykins,

are christians only believing because of the fear of hell?

NO!! emphatically i have to say it like that, we dont, at least that is not the primary reason,

part 1: it is a reality, that hell is a scary place, but a good analogy of hell is addiction, people want to be there, even though they are suffering, I want to be there, a part of me really wants to be there, C.S Lewis talks about hell having a door which is locked from the inside. the above story about the rich guy and lazarus, the rich guy never asks to be let out of hell, only that lazarus might relieve him for a bit, he never apologises, he still orders lazarus around.

part 2: the reason why christianity imo is different ot other religions is that it is good news, not good advice.

you respond to good news, the work/event has already passed. jesus has already died on the cross for our sins, all the remains is your response, do you ignore him or do you accept him? all you can do is respond.

good advice is the opposite, it is about what you can do, to earn your salvation, its about how you should live. it often leads to rules, fear of whether or not youve satisified god and pride in your own works so that you may earn your salvation when you think you have satisfied god and generally just pride in knowing what you know. something you might have heard: religious people killed jesus. thats not to say that christians arent proud at times and arent fearful, but thats not because the good news isnt of good enough quality

do they only believe because they want to benefit out of this belief, is it a selfish belief?

i think there is benefit, to clarify, heaps of benefit, but is it selfish? about just helping themselves? i dont think so, im gonna just pick one angle, cos there could be lots, but

when you truly love someone you can know by how much you sacrifice for them

for jesus, he sacrificed everything, he was god, he had absolute freedom, and the absolute best relationship he could ever have with God, it hurts when you lose a friend, a girlfriend, etc, or your identity, if you thought you were smart and bomb out in exams and that was your identity itd suck (speak for myself), thought you were really good at footy but destroyed your knee, it would suck and youd feel disintegration, or worthlessness to some degree, jesus lost all he built his identity on, and he lost the greatest relationship ever, and his freedom.

if jesus is our model, a model of sacrificial love and humility, one thing about being saved is you want to help in the work of saving others, when God talks to the rich man in the story with lazarus he doesnt call him evil sinner, he calls him son. i guess its similar in a way, there is gain involved for a christian, but he is called to serve as well and not out of fear because the only way to god is through jesus not by our works or how much we do, we are only saved simply by our response to the good news,

about the logic thing, i guess its hard to say, though there are heaps of people including me who have said the wrongs things and misrespresented christianity, if you have a specific question that you want to ask, we can try answer it but.

 

[tommykins]

no offense but that was nothing but mindless dribble.

dw, il lask someone eelse

 

[aequrico]

no offense but that was nothing but mindless dribble.

dw, il lask someone eelse

its okay, i didnt take too much offense , heres my second attempt. i hope you do ask someone else but


yes some christians do only believe because they want to benefit out of that belief, i.e get to heaven and not to hell.

if they believe that, yes it is a selfish belief, its about what they can bargain out of this belief.

for them, i question and doubt whether or not they would get this benefit, because being a christian gets you to heaven BUT if you live out of fear, and
NOT from trust and belief in the death and resurrection of christ in place for your sins, then you wont get that benefit.

the benefit does not come from belief in god and fear of hell.

 

[Iron]

BUT if you live out of fear, and
NOT from trust and belief in the death and resurrection of christ in place for your sins, then you wont get that benefit.

.

who r u to judge m8

 

[aequrico]

who r u to judge m8

i cant, i dont know specifically know if individuals will "benefit from their belief". Thats why i question. Only god can see our hearts and judge us.

on the other hand the bible specifically says that the only way to God is through Jesus, not fear of hell.

but then, who are you to judge that im judging?

my point is, if you accuse someone of judging, are you not yourself judging,

 

[Cookie182]

1/ Iron and I disagree on WORLDY realities, but I will give it to him, in that he doesn't presume judgements about everyone's fate.

2/ To reply above, I won't be offensive as I asked for a Christian opinion, but I have read the Bible myself and most of what you are repeating is almost to the point of irrelevancy. Though I do admit, since I firmly believe that NO ONE knows (as we all share the same neurology), asking the world's most respected theologians still won't ACTUALLY answer my question. My point, even as the most devout Christian, it is still a subjective belief (or an affirmation) yet you would be doing me a great dishonesty if you couldn't admit that you don't actually KNOW (there is a huge difference between belief and objective knowledge). Belief = hope in your case.

Secondly, I'm appalled by the general paradigm- what a pessimistic outlook on mankind. Basically we are all born in the negative- rebellious pieces of shit which only have one way out of it (to put it harshly). There is nothing about the independence of man; nothing about his humanistic triumphs to love, to seek and to know, all that is GOOD is just given to god- where is man’s credibility is? Under these eyes, no one can even be an achiever- nothing you do here in this "test demo" matters; reality is contingent above AFFIRMATION that JC is the "only way". Yet if god was kind, why allow another ~19 999 religions to operate through history? Does he not have compassion that other people will be indoctrinated into these and the very neuropsychological structure of our brains (which he aptly designed) is fixated on the first learned reality- i.e. if you were born into a muslim family. That brings me to the second question, there is just as much evidence that Mohammed had the final revelation and only living through the 5 pillars of Islam is the way to Allah- you don't do this. In fact you have reasons WHY you don't- your an atheist in respect to Islam here. Respectfully, I ask you to consider WHY and then think that in many ways it is the same reasons I don't believe in your god- you've clearly demonstrated its all guess work.

On evolution, I don't study science but the internet is fantastic. As a doctor a good understanding of evolutionary theory (hard evidence which produces a substantial amount of facts to present a scientific reality!) is pertinent- read all of Richard Dawkins series, anything by Jarod Diamond, Stephen Jay Gould, David Stamos (Evolution and the Big Questions), read about "Lucy" and "Eida" the links they discovered...I very much think the evidence DESTROYS any idea of Adam/eve, which has NO objective evidence whatsoever.

In fact, you talk so deeply of "sin"- no Christian has ever actually been able to tell me philosophically what "sin" is- other then "the opposite of god" (which begs the question he exists and ends up being circular). Even if Adam and Eve hold, I personally had no part in this and think I have morally transcended far beyond this ridiculous price upon my head . The idea of this totalitarian, celestial dictatorship is abhorrent- how can we ever even contemplate such an evil? It's hardline right wing and conservative, I reject the "authoritarian father" household as a family paradigm, and was raised in a left-wing, "motherly" nurturing environment.

Lastly I want to expand on "why" god actually cares. TBH, if your omniscient/omnipotent, there would be no necessary motivation gained/loss from external events (once which you can create/destroy and all-ready fully know of). The logical consequence (and earlier you said god can't deny logic) would be ultimately apathy towards sin/afterlife/punishment- nothing else fits. This actually assumes creation by a "human like" entity in the first place (which is impossible, perfection would transcend petty human brain states like "love", "anger", "jealousy").

Of course I'm an atheist, yet if enough evidence suggested an ID universe and supernatural abiogenesis then I would only contend that deism is logical- without giving to many positive attributes, this amazing powerful creator would beyond any insignificant mind can imagine, "not just like us".

*Please don’t respond in bold.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

This amazing powerful creator would beyond any insignificant mind can imagine, "not just like us".

Totally agreed with this. If there is a God, it is highly, highly unlikely that it would be akin to *any* conception of this being currently found in the mainstream Abrahamic religions. (And I only refer to the Abrahamic religions because I don't know enough about the others to make a judgement.)

 

[Cookie182]

My second point, if we allow that "god" slipped "adam/eve" into the fossil record to be the first, early Homo sapiens about 200 thousand yrs ago, making "Eden" somewhere in Africa, this must logically be the "fall of grace".

Then I ask you, what of the other homo species before-

Homo Neandertalensis? ~230-29 thousand years ago. These were social, hunter-gathering people ranging from Europe to the Middle East, N Africa and Asia. Are they exempt from this "sin"? If so, how unfair that we as modern Homo sapiens have to pay for the fuck-up of our distant ancestors, yet species before don't?

Or did Adam/Eve come with modern homo sapiens- Cro-Magnon about 50 thousand years ago?

Even then, it took god ~48 thousand years to send down JC into a desolate, quiet area of the age to offer the only antidote to this eternal damnation. So what of the people before- did Socrates and Aristotle who worshiped Greek mythology get a free ride? The Aboriginal people with their dreamtime mythology who had migrated to Australia 40 000 yrs ago? These people had no knowledge of JC- but they are exempt, in his loving spirit they just get to float up to heaven? They weren't tested on their "faith". What an inequality that we are now born into an age 2000 yrs later, where as soon as your conscious and able to comprehend the proposition being put forward, if we don't accept we are condemned...

Surely you’re starting to see what load of rot the whole thing is...

 

[micuzzo]

no offense but that was nothing but mindless dribble.

dw, il lask someone eelse

wats the question.. ccb reading back ...

 

[kokodamonkey]

Why is this at all necessary? I wasn't given a choice to be born- had I been, perhaps I might have declined given eternity is a while...

Yes you were given a choice. you were the first one to reach the egg. that was your choice to race a head of the other sperm.

 

[tommykins]

wats the question.. ccb reading back ...

Assumption - God exists.
Scenario - Pretend rather than going to heaven, you to go hell. Whereas, non-believers go to heaven.

Would you still believe? So far all answers have been more or less - people will not find this option appealing despite it being the 'truth' (of course, with this scenario it is) and hence proposes the idea that believers are doing so under convenience, not for truth.

 

[Iron]

Belief is almost always highly inconvenient

at least for the Catholic.
Embracing the cross in God's service entails significant self-denial, suffering etc

 

[Tully B.]

Assumption - God exists.
Scenario - Pretend rather than going to heaven, you to go hell. Whereas, non-believers go to heaven.

Would you still believe? So far all answers have been more or less - people will not find this option appealing despite it being the 'truth' (of course, with this scenario it is) and hence proposes the idea that believers are doing so under convenience, not for truth.

Belief isn't a choice. A Christian can't force themselves not to believe in God, and atheists can't force themselve to believe in God. In your scenario, I would predict that a whole bunch of Christians would be going to hell, and some rather surprised atheists, such as myself, would be going to heaven.

Heaven sounds like hell to me. Eternity with God? BOR-ING. Eternity is a long time. It's like 100 years, except times infinity.

 

[superchair]

A common thread of questioning is (particularly to Protestants, not people who invent non-biblical dimensions like purgatory).

Atheist: Why does god send non-believers to hell and have them tortured for eternity?

Christian: Oh, he still loves you. He is all-loving and not cruel. It's his way of granting your wish- since you rejected him; he knows you don't want to spend eternity with him...

My question:

Why do I have to have an afterlife? I mean my dog and bird get to just die. And don’t say “because your made in his image”- I didn’t consent!!!!!!

Why is this at all necessary? I wasn't given a choice to be born- had I been, perhaps I might have declined given eternity is a while...

If the non-believer is content with no afterlife- why can't god grant them (in his all-loving character) the wish of just...dieing? It's dead simple.

I'd have to say the common Christian response holds the worst logic ever- so the "loving" god not only needs to lock you away from him (because you "choose it"- something I'd argue, having "faith" is impossible for many atheists!) but you need to also suffer torment. At this point I guess all you can do is laugh...

I know its all bs anyway, but I’d like to see a serious attempt from say Mcflystargirl or someone who actually preaches this cruelty.

well back on topic ....

i am answering in my own christian perspective

Why do I have to have an afterlife?

because we are created with 3 aspects...

your flesh
your spirit
your soul

your flesh is your body (orealy lol) ... it will decay eventually... it will perish
your soul in a sense is who you are... your personality in a way
your spirit is your connection with the spiritual realm... it will never die/perish.. hence it must be somewhere after? right?

so you must have an afterlife because your spirit is eternal... no matter where you are

Why is this at all necessary?

The whole point of God creating us was to have a relationship with him... but our own foolishness caused us to make a rift ... sin. We were created to communicate with God... but out earthly selves are inadequate of this because of sin.

So in heaven we will be able to live to our original design plan... to be in relationship with God.. that's why it is necessary.

- i would like to comment your rationalizing...you seem to misunderstand why people go to hell

you gotta start from the beginning... hell was never intended for people but rather for Satan and his daemons... but because we are full of sin and are unholy we cant be in the presence of God.. so therefore the only place we can go is hell ( since we all sin). What you gotta realize is that God isn't sending you to hell... you yourself are sending you to hell by rebelling against God because there is no where else to go

God doesnt want anyone in hell... but it IS YOUR CHOICE
live in sin -> cant be in Gods presence -> can only go to hell
or
accept Jesus sacrifice on the cross -> realize he took your since -> God doesn't see your sin rather he sees Jesus -> you are pure in Gods eyes and can come to heaven

God wants everyone to be in heaven.... that is his plan

 

[mitchells00]

Hello,

Athiest here, just putting out some of the reasons I reject the idea of a god/s or anything like one.


#1. I was raised without the mention of god, it wasn't drilled into me or even told that a god did or didn't exist, it didn't even come to mind. When I was first confronted with the idea, I instantly thought it ridiculous as much as I would an imaginary friend. I can't see it, I can't hear it, you tell me it was the one that threw the rock at the back of my head and expect me to believe you because the rock being thrown is proof of it's existence? You say he did it because he loves me? Absolutely preposterous. The same argument applies for a god and the creation of the universe.


#2. Mathematical probability (even outside the realm of physics, mathematics would still be a constant. The existence of a god would still be within mathematics, seeing as how there is a quantity of god/s (0 to infinity) not to mention a few other things).

Mathematical probability doesn't directly state this, but it is a fact and is constant throughout probability: The more difficult an outcome, the less likely it will happen.

If we take the 4 possible set of events (and if there are any others please enlighten me, and I will incorporate them)
A. God was always there, and then created the universe.
B. The universe was always there.
C. God came out of nothing, and then created the universe.
D. The universe came out of nothing.

Also assuming that god > universe (god is greater, and more complex than the universe), seeing as to create the universe it would indeed have to be greater than it's own creation.

The chance that a god comes out of nothing (no god CANNOT create itself) is much lower than the universe coming out of nothing, seeing as god is more complex. It is much more difficult for a perfectly formed and great omnipotent being to come out of nothing than it is for a blob of matter and energy at one point in space.

The chance that god was just there and proceeded to create the universe vs the universe was just there also takes into account the difficulty of just being there, but also the order of events itself is more difficult.


#3. Religion seems to be a coping mechanism designed for human comfort.

This can be compared to a child's imaginary friend. They are there because the child feels a need to connect and form a strong bond with someone (a best friend as seen commonly in childhood), and lacks someone suitable. A child's mind is susceptible to trick or illusion, believing in something out of pure will (Santa, easter bunny, tooth fairy), an imaginary friend would be no different. In the case that a child was repeatedly convinced by people it trusted that there was someone standing where there was clearly not, perhaps they would begin to believe. If this person were to provide safety and comfort and supposedly accurate knowledge to the child, the child would inadvertently become attached to this figure emotionally, and would build a dependency on these qualities.

Now, if you convinced the child that if it stopped believing that the figure was there, that the figure would punish him with that giant mallet he was holding, the child begins to fear any thought or influence that might convince it that the figure did not in fact exist, like when children grow out of their imaginary friends.

This is exactly the recipe for a successful god (By successful I mean widely accepted).


Those, among other things (Euthyphro dilemma as one example) tend to lead me to believe that a belief in a deity with no proof (and no, books or any other texts are not proof, they are merely hearsay) is childish and foolish, and can be quite destructive to any society.

The Pirahã people are a good example of a godless society that is quite moral, for anyone who wishes to bring up that argument, and they even rejected (and deconverted) a missionary in the process (for anyone else who says that they will become better or something like that).


Anyway I'm incredibly tired after that lengthy response... Night.

 

[-may-cat-]

'

Genesis 1":27 "let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground".

I gotta say, the plural has me a little thrown.

 

[Kate1991]

The plural "our" refers to the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they were all there in the beginning.

 

[Tully B.]

you gotta start from the beginning... hell was never intended for people but rather for Satan and his daemons... but because we are full of sin and are unholy we cant be in the presence of God.. so therefore the only place we can go is hell ( since we all sin). What you gotta realize is that God isn't sending you to hell... you yourself are sending you to hell by rebelling against God because there is no where else to go

God doesnt want anyone in hell... but it IS YOUR CHOICE
live in sin -> cant be in Gods presence -> can only go to hell
or
accept Jesus sacrifice on the cross -> realize he took your since -> God doesn't see your sin rather he sees Jesus -> you are pure in Gods eyes and can come to heaven

God wants everyone to be in heaven.... that is his plan

The idea that we "choose" to go to hell is ridiculous. We're not rebelling against God - we're not believing in him. There are few people who believe in Santa Clause, and yet I would hazard to guess that no one is rebelling against him.

Belief is NOT A CHOICE. If anyone CHOOSES whether or not I am to believe in God, then that would be God himself. 1000s of years before I was born, your "God" knew whether or not I would be going to hell. Therefore, he would have created me for the express purpose of going to hell. That is the definition of being a dickhead.

Ok, so God wants us to go to heaven? Then why doesn't he let us? Why doesn't he snap his Godly fingers and make the sin go away? After all, he's the one that allowed us to have sin in the first place.

But noooooooo, instead he decides to do something so obscure as to send his son/himself (TRINITY???) to die.... is he such an idiot that he wouldn't realise that after 2000 years people would find it hard to believe that someone performed miracles and rose from the dead? After all, there's plenty of literature from that time that claims very similar things.

 

[trickx]

Oh the irony of Christian theology ... freewill is imposed.

I don't see how the two choices of going to heaven or hell is voluntary ...

 

[Teclis]

Hello,

Athiest here, just putting out some of the reasons I reject the idea of a god/s or anything like one.

#1. I was raised without the mention of god, it wasn't drilled into me or even told that a god did or didn't exist, it didn't even come to mind. When I was first confronted with the idea, I instantly thought it ridiculous as much as I would an imaginary friend. I can't see it, I can't hear it, you tell me it was the one that threw the rock at the back of my head and expect me to believe you because the rock being thrown is proof of it's existence? You say he did it because he loves me? Absolutely preposterous. The same argument applies for a god and the creation of the universe.

So because you can't see or haven't experienced something means it doesn't exist?

#2. Mathematical probability (even outside the realm of physics, mathematics would still be a constant. The existence of a god would still be within mathematics, seeing as how there is a quantity of god/s (0 to infinity) not to mention a few other things).

Mathematical probability doesn't directly state this, but it is a fact and is constant throughout probability: The more difficult an outcome, the less likely it will happen.

If we take the 4 possible set of events (and if there are any others please enlighten me, and I will incorporate them)
A. God was always there, and then created the universe.
B. The universe was always there.
C. God came out of nothing, and then created the universe.
D. The universe came out of nothing.

Also assuming that god > universe (god is greater, and more complex than the universe), seeing as to create the universe it would indeed have to be greater than it's own creation.

The chance that a god comes out of nothing (no god CANNOT create itself) is much lower than the universe coming out of nothing, seeing as god is more complex. It is much more difficult for a perfectly formed and great omnipotent being to come out of nothing than it is for a blob of matter and energy at one point in space.

The chance that god was just there and proceeded to create the universe vs the universe was just there also takes into account the difficulty of just being there, but also the order of events itself is more difficult.

Not sure what your point was supposed to be here...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that Mathematics disproves God's existence? Because there are a few flaws in that theory.

1) Why does Mathematics have to exist in a spiritual realm with a completely omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God?... Doesn't omnipotence mean ALL powerful. As in, creating Mathematics? As well as having the power to break those rules? Just saying...

2) If you're talking about the probability of the Universe and it's existence, you just have to look at the fact that at EVERY turn, the evolution of humans was a statistical improbability of millions to one...

3) No Christian believes that God came out of Nothing. God always was and always is. But he doesn't exist within a linear timeframe... 2 Peter 3:8-10 makes the illusion of "...a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day..." You can't think of it as a Linear progression thing. It's the same mistake of saying "who made God"... which puts God as a part of a Linear time frame, which would contradict the idea of an Omnipotent, Omnipresent omniscient God... and you'd be talking about a different God.

#3. Religion seems to be a coping mechanism designed for human comfort.

This can be compared to a child's imaginary friend. They are there because the child feels a need to connect and form a strong bond with someone (a best friend as seen commonly in childhood), and lacks someone suitable. A child's mind is susceptible to trick or illusion, believing in something out of pure will (Santa, easter bunny, tooth fairy), an imaginary friend would be no different. In the case that a child was repeatedly convinced by people it trusted that there was someone standing where there was clearly not, perhaps they would begin to believe. If this person were to provide safety and comfort and supposedly accurate knowledge to the child, the child would inadvertently become attached to this figure emotionally, and would build a dependency on these qualities.

Now, if you convinced the child that if it stopped believing that the figure was there, that the figure would punish him with that giant mallet he was holding, the child begins to fear any thought or influence that might convince it that the figure did not in fact exist, like when children grow out of their imaginary friends.

This is exactly the recipe for a successful god (By successful I mean widely accepted).

You point only goes so far, and sounds like another, immensely similar point by one Richard Dawkins. That any child bought up in Religion stays so out of fear... and I take offence at that notion... as having looked and weighed the evidence myself so as NOT to just follow blindly. And there are many who do the same.

Those, among other things (Euthyphro dilemma as one example) tend to lead me to believe that a belief in a deity with no proof (and no, books or any other texts are not proof, they are merely hearsay) is childish and foolish, and can be quite destructive to any society.

So what is proof then?
Historical records of a man who lived 2000 years ago who claimed to be God, and performed miracles? Because that's what the New Testament is... along with multiple pagan sources at the time. Thallos' Third Volume of his "Histories", Mara bar Serapion' Syriac Manuscript, Tacitus' Histories and Annals, Suetonius, Celsus, Lucian of Samosata, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, The Talmud...

Jesus existed, that much is CERTAIN.
Jesus performed deeds that gathered followers. CERTAIN.

Celsus, while attacking Christianity makes reference to the miracles Jesus did (while putting them off as Egyptian Sorcery)...
Josephus names him as being a doer of "startling deeds"

I could keep going and going about the historical reliability of the Bible if you like. I could talk about many reasons why it is EXTREMELY unlikely it was doctored (we're talking International, century spanding conspiracies here).

The Pirahã people are a good example of a godless society that is quite moral, for anyone who wishes to bring up that argument, and they even rejected (and deconverted) a missionary in the process (for anyone else who says that they will become better or something like that).

The Piraha believe in Spirits...:wave:
But yes... If we could all live the way the Piraha do... sleeping with nanna naps all through the day, in a society of that is essentially a form communism (because we all know that humans are really going to share their wealth evenly if that's what everyone wants), having no history beyond what can be remembered... I'm sure we could ALL live in a peaceful society without religion.

Yes Atheists can be moral people... but only because they choose to be so... and usually base their morals on religious ideas of right and wrong. Don't steal, don't kill, don't lie, don't commit adultery... etc etc etc.