Sin/Heaven/Hell

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

However, this entire thread is within the context of whether it is a sin for someone who is already a Christian to commit a certain act. My point, and it remains valid, is that some sins are much worse than others, primarily because they hurt others more.

Surely that's not possible. Sin exists only in relation to God - the effects on people are irrelevant to sin qua sin. The only defined sins are those that God has defined as sins, and there is nowhere, as far as I know, where He defines sin by virtue of its effects on other people.

All you can say is that "some sins have worse effects on other people, because they hurt other people more" - which is of course tautological.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

2) What happens when you get there? Well, I don't pretend to know how God will judge the man whose only crime in life was to lie about the size of his wife's arse compared to the vile sins of Hitler. Yet, at the same time, I realise that God tells us that some sins carry a greater weight than others - I don't believe that these are all constricted sins that 'hurt others' btw.

Would you be confident that your sins do not warrant hell?

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

So, in conclusion, I believe that neuro-praxis (and myself) is right when you look at point 1. However, when you get to point 2, well, yes, all sins are not equal, but it would be Gods decision on how he weights the various virtues and sins in your life against each other.

It seems extremely likely that this is so, and it agrees well with how humans think - but at the same time where is the Biblical justification for believing it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Would you be confident that your sins do not warrant hell?

My sins do warrant Hell, Jesus has paid for them though, so that I may be in full communion with God.

All sin warrants Hell.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

My sins do warrant Hell, Jesus has paid for them though, so that I may be in full communion with God.

All sin warrants Hell.

Ok, maybe I phrased that wrong.

Would you be confident that you will go to heaven despite your sins? Or are you anticipating eternity in hell?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, maybe I phrased that wrong.

Would you be confident that you will go to heaven despite your sins? Or are you anticipating eternity in hell?

Very confident of heaven. My sins are forgiven, thank God!

do any of you ever believe in hell and actually expect to go there

or is it all "everyones going to hell because we're all horrible people except we're not really cos i'm going to heaven"

PDN

bluewolf wrote:

do any of you ever believe in hell and actually expect to go there

or is it all "everyones going to hell because we're all horrible people except we're not really cos i'm going to heaven"

At one time I knew I was going there, which was quite an incentive to get saved.

PDN

PDN wrote:

At one time I knew I was going there, which was quite an incentive to get saved.

Why/how did you know you were going there

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, maybe I phrased that wrong.

Would you be confident that you will go to heaven despite your sins? Or are you anticipating eternity in hell?

Very confident of going to Heaven. God has promised Heaven to all that accept the gift of salvation through Christ. I've accepted the gift and God keeps his promises.

PDN

bluewolf wrote:

Why/how did you know you were going there

This thread appears to be well & truly hijacked.

I knew I was going there because God the Holy Spirit impressed it very clearly upon my mind & heart. A term you don't hear often in churches today, but a very valid & biblical experience, is being 'convicted of sin'.

PDN

PDN wrote:

This thread appears to be well & truly hijacked.

I knew I was going there because God the Holy Spirit impressed it very clearly upon my mind & heart. A term you don't hear often in churches today, but a very valid & biblical experience, is being 'convicted of sin'.

Maybe we could make this a new thread...

No, I'm just wondering if you: weren't a christian and thought you were going to hell then became a christian, if you were a christian and thought you were a bad one that was going to hell but something's changed, or if you didn't think you were going to hell til you read up on christianity/rediscovered it and were led to the belief that you were...

PDN

bluewolf wrote:

No, I'm just wondering if you: weren't a christian and thought you were going to hell then became a christian, if you were a christian and thought you were a bad one that was going to hell but something's changed, or if you didn't think you were going to hell til you read up on christianity/rediscovered it and were led to the belief that you were...

I was a convinced atheist who, in a 'Damascus Road' experience became suddenly convinced that I was heading for hell. I then spent a year as a non-Christian who fully believed that if I died I would go to hell, yet refused to accept Christ because I found the Christian church & organized Christianity to be profoundly unattractive.

Finally I made a commitment of faith in Christ & I have been 100% convinced for the last 26 years that I am going to heaven. It's not been easy street, my wife and I were bereaved of a 5-year old daughter, but I can honestly say that I have never doubted, even for a moment, that my destination is heaven.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I was a convinced atheist who, in a 'Damascus Road' experience became suddenly convinced that I was heading for hell. I then spent a year as a non-Christian who fully believed that if I died I would go to hell, yet refused to accept Christ because I found the Christian church & organized Christianity to be profoundly unattractive.

Finally I made a commitment of faith in Christ & I have been 100% convinced for the last 26 years that I am going to heaven. It's not been easy street, my wife and I were bereaved of a 5-year old daughter, but I can honestly say that I have never doubted, even for a moment, that my destination is heaven.

As a matter of interest, how old were you when you converted?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

As a matter of interest, how old were you when you converted?

cordially,
Scofflaw

18 years old (yes, I know, that makes me almost a wrinkly now). I had been living on the streets for 3 years

philologos

PDN, thats a truly profound story, and I believe as well as you that you were saved by God Himself. Thankfully, I haven't had to encounter anything as bad as that in my life, but it is nice to know that God continues to save people who have rejected Him.

God bless,
Jakkass

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

18 years old (yes, I know, that makes me almost a wrinkly now). I had been living on the streets for 3 years

It makes you, alas, only a couple of years older than me!

I've been an atheist now for 30 years (since late childhood), through various strokes of fate. I hope you won't take offence if I say that I don't consider teenage atheism as actual atheism? There's a rather long sturm-und-drang period in one's teens, where various forms of pseudo-nihilism appeal, but they usually wear off.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Very confident of going to Heaven. God has promised Heaven to all that accept the gift of salvation through Christ. I've accepted the gift and God keeps his promises.

Ok, but I'm genuinely confused then when people say that some sins are worse than others.

Is there a sin you can do from which you cannot be saved?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

At one time I knew I was going there, which was quite an incentive to get saved.

Clearly, but I suppose the question would be did you change because you thought the things you had done before were wrong, or did you change because you didn't want to end up in hell

I suppose it could be argued that it doesn't matter, but it would be interesting to find a Christian who believes they are going to hell for what they have done but still tries to lead a moral life anyway.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, but I'm genuinely confused then when people say that some sins are worse than others.

Is there a sin you can do from which you cannot be saved?

I'm not going to ignore the question. I have been meaning to study the idea that there are varying degrees of comfort in Heaven and possibly in Hell as well, but I haven't had time to yet.

The only sin I'm aware of that doesn't get forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. What that sin would look like I don't know.
Matthew 12:31
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.


My clue to the differing comforts in Heaven comes from Jesus statement

Matthew 6:20
But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

This may indicate that the more you work for God the more treasure that you build in Heaven. I don't know what that treasure is or whther or not Jesus is just using metaphor. But if you can build treasures in Heaven possibly then there could be degrees of torment in Hell, but as I said, I don't know, these are just my thoughts a quick reason behind them.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

I suppose it could be argued that it doesn't matter, but it would be interesting to find a Christian who believes they are going to hell for what they have done but still tries to lead a moral life anyway.

I think that would be impossible, because once you are a Christian you are headed to Heaven.

Some come to God because they want to go to HEaven, I know that was my final motivation.

Others maybe because they want to please God and repent of their sin, I know someone who fits that category.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

I suppose the question would be did you change because you thought the things you had done before were wrong, or did you change because you didn't want to end up in hell

I suppose it could be argued that it doesn't matter, but it would be interesting to find a Christian who believes they are going to hell for what they have done but still tries to lead a moral life anyway.

I think it was a combination of factors. I didn't want to go to Hell, but neither did I want my life to keep being so miserable.

I, like most evangelicals, would define a Christian as somebody who has asked Christ to become their Saviour and are trusting Him for their salvation. Therefore, by that definition, it would seem to be logically impossible for someone to think they are going to hell and also be a Christian.

However, one example could be William Cowper, an eighteenth Century English poet & hymn writer. Cowper suffered from mental illness for much of his life & at times believed that an earlier suicide attempt constituted "the unforgivable sin". So, even though he believed himself to be damned, he still worshiped as a Christian and attempted to live by the tenets of his faith.

hairyheretic

BrianCalgary wrote:

I think that would be impossible, because once you are a Christian you are headed to Heaven.

Pointed in that direction perhaps, but still no guarantee that that is where they will end up.

philologos

Yes there is hairyheretic.

Mark 16:15-16 wrote:

He said to them, "Go throughout the whole world and preach the gospel to the whole human race. Whoever believes will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned."

the_syco

bluewolf wrote:

do any of you ever believe in hell and actually expect to go there

Its not a case of do we believe in it, but what we believe it is? Some would consider doing nothing all day, every day, would be heaven. I'd consider it hell, as I'd be bored out of my brains.

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, but I'm genuinely confused then when people say that some sins are worse than others.

Believing in another god is a sin (I think), but so is tormenting and killing someone for sh|t and giggles. I'd say the latter is worse.

=-=

Oh, and before someone asks, I stopped believing in God when I went through a car window, yet I still say "hi" / pray to him when walking through holy ground. I do the odd good deed, but I can be a wicked bas7ard when I choose. I've never made a deal with the devil, but I have made a few with God, some of which he's upheld, some which he didn't, but as so much is uncertain, I can't "believe" without reason/through faith. But if doubting Thomas got into heaven, I stand a good chance:D

hairyheretic

Jakkass wrote:

Yes there is hairyheretic.

Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church claim to be christians, and seem to do little but promote hate. Will they still be going to heaven?

Will the Inquisitors who tortured and murdered thousands in the name of your god be waiting for you in heaven?

Belief is all well and good, but to my mind your actions weigh a lot more.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

This may indicate that the more you work for God the more treasure that you build in Heaven. I don't know what that treasure is or whther or not Jesus is just using metaphor. But if you can build treasures in Heaven possibly then there could be degrees of torment in Hell, but as I said, I don't know, these are just my thoughts a quick reason behind them.

Interesting, I didn't realise it was like that.

The reason I ask is because the focus in all this seems to be on the question of if a person seeks forgiveness for their sins from God. But PDN raised the interesting point of how much your sins hurt others around you. Does God take this into account?

This is how an atheists would view the immorality of an act, based on how it effects others. But when it comes to forgiveness in Christianity this seems to be largely put aside. The severity of an act will effect where you end up in heaven, but you are still forgiven for it by God if you seek forgiveness from him.

I suppose what I'm asking is will God forgive you if the people you have actually hurt don't? And if he will is that true forgiveness, since you didn't hurt God? I was once asked on this forum did I not long for forgiveness for the bad things I have done in this life and did this longing not make me want to seek God's forgiveness for these things. I replied honestly that God's forgiveness would be irrelevant, even if it was granted to me, the only forgiveness I would seek would be from those that I had hurt.

I'm wondering how Christians view sin and forgiveness in relation to others. Is God's forgiveness the one that matters?

stevejazzx

BrianCalgary wrote:

My sins do warrant Hell, Jesus has paid for them though, so that I may be in full communion with God.

All sin warrants Hell.

So how exactly does the idea of presumtion (this is notion that you will not be forgiven if you repent suddenly, say on your deathbed in the presumtion that repentance at that particular moment will get you into heaven, this covers the loophole of someone leading an unholy life and then just repenting at the end to secure a place in heaven) in relation to knowing that Jesus has paid for your sins?
I always found it difficult in religous studies to understand how presumption works as it is a sin to presume you will be forgiven just becasue you repent? But the bible says that you will be, except in the case of sin against the holy spririt. Is presumtion covered in the bible? It always seemed to me as a kind legal cover for those who tried to use the bibilical technically but then thinking about how can a sinner who reads the bible not presume they will be forgiven?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, maybe I phrased that wrong.

Would you be confident that you will go to heaven despite your sins? Or are you anticipating eternity in hell?

I believe that if God says he forgives your sin than they are forgiven. At times, though, I wouldn't have quite the same faith in my destiny as people like BC. This is because I'm far from being considered a model Christian, but I'm trying to rectify that and make God more central to my life.

PDN

hairyheretic wrote:

Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church claim to be christians, and seem to do little but promote hate. Will they still be going to heaven?

Will the Inquisitors who tortured and murdered thousands in the name of your god be waiting for you in heaven?

Belief is all well and good, but to my mind your actions weigh a lot more.

The Christian position is that salvation is by faith, but that genuine faith will necessarily produce good works (assuming that it is given enough time - the thief on the Cross apparently had genuine faith, but died before he had any opportunity to demonstrate it).

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. (James 2:14-24)

If Fred Phelps and his hate-filled congregation were allowed to enter heaven, unless they were radically transformed they would quickly turn it into hell. The same would go for the sadistic monsters who ran the Inquisition.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I believe that if God says he forgives your sin than they are forgiven. At times, though, I wouldn't have quite the same faith in my destiny as people like BC. This is because I'm far from being considered a model Christian, but I'm trying to rectify that and make God more central to my life.

But does anyone think, as William Cowper did, that God will probably send them to hell anyway, no matter what they do?

I would imagine for most people the answer is no, which hints to me what the religion offers people.

I asked for my own interest going back to the discussion I had with you on the other forum about how religions, all religions, operate, the way religion is presented as a solution to a problem that nothing else can solve.

Very few accept the dogma of a religion that doesn't solve the problem, in this case the problem being guilt of past actions and fear of death.

To me it is interesting that Christianity (or pretty much all western religions) are set up in such a way that belief in God is irrelevant to the good deeds that people do.

A person who spends his entire life doing good things because they feel it is right but who doesn't believe, or isn't even aware of, God, will go to hell.

Yet a person who has a life of bad deeds but who eventually submits to God and seeks forgiveness from him (not mind from the people he did the bad deeds too) will have a place in heaven, albeit possibly not the best place in heaven.

This has to be the way the religion is set up for the religion to survive cultural evolution, because if you didn't have to follow the religion to be granted the rewards of the religion then what would be the point. The religion wouldn't get very far.

From an atheists position, as someone who views religion as a social construct, this is a fascinating aspect of the religion. It is almost as if a set up like this is a requirement for a religion to succeed and spread, and one can certainly see the attraction of it.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

The Christian position is that salvation is by faith, but that genuine faith will necessarily produce good works

Well again, the issue there is that everyone seems to think that their faith is genuine.

If I asked the question I asked above in a slightly different way -

Does anyone think that their faith in God is not genuine faith, and therefore they won't be getting into heaven?

I would imagine the result would be the same.

Fred Phelps no doubt imagines his faith is genuine and that you guys are all missing the true message from the Bible, that homosexuality is a sin that angers God and that tolerance of it will lead to God's anger being brought upon people that do tolerate it. Because of this he no doubt thinks none of you guys are getting into heaven

interestinguser

Matthew 12:31
And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

I once denied the Holy Spirit. Does this now mean I automatically go to hell?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

To me it is interesting that Christianity (or pretty much all western religions) are set up in such a way that belief in God is irrelevant to the good deeds that people do.

If this were true then we should expect that atheists would be responsible for all the good works & social improvements.

When I was homeless & sleeping on the streets I never met an atheist who fed me, but the Salvation Army did. When I visit poverty stricken villages in Nigeria I don't see any relief projects other than those being sponsored by Christian groups.

It was evangelical Christians who worked tirelessly to abolish the transatlantic slave trade, campaigned for the introduction of a minimum age of consent so as to stop child prostitution, & formed the earliest trade unions. People like William Wilberforce, Elizabeth Fry, William Booth, Martin Luther King etc. were driven by their faith to do good works

It is also true that many Christians have had (and still do have) massive blind spots in respect to social justice. Others have claimed to be Christians but have committed horrible acts. But to argue that in Christianity belief in God is irrelevant to good works is a perversion of history. Organized religion has often been used as a cloak for the greed & meglomania of hypocrites, but individual Christians who truly believe have consistently been making changes for the better.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Well again, the issue there is that everyone seems to think that their faith is genuine.

If I asked the question I asked above in a slightly different way -

Does anyone think that their faith in God is not genuine faith, and therefore they won't be getting into heaven?

I would imagine the result would be the same.

Fred Phelps no doubt imagines his faith is genuine and that you guys are all missing the true message from the Bible, that homosexuality is a sin that angers God and that tolerance of it will lead to God's anger being brought upon people that do tolerate it. Because of this he no doubt thinks none of you guys are getting into heaven

Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, said, "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." (Matthew 7:16-18)

I am quite sure that Fred Phelps thinks his faith is genuine - but the fruit of his faith is hate and vitriol.

There have been many who have found it convenient to pretend to be Christians. This goes back to the Emperor Constantine who took the sign of the cross together with the slogan "By this sign, conquer". This doesn't worry me one bit - in fact it's a back-handed compliment. People only try to counterfeit that which is worthwhile, which is why you have to watch out for fake 100 euro notes but not for fake Zimbabwean dollars! (Funnily enough I've never met a hypocrite who pretended to be an atheist, but perhaps they existed in Soviet Russia while Stalin, a real committed atheist, was busy butchering his people). But the true Christian faith can always be distinguished from the false because it produces love, joy, peace etc.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

If this were true then we should expect that atheists would be responsible for all the good works & social improvements.

No, we would expect them to do exactly the same as Christians.

PDN wrote:

When I was homeless & sleeping on the streets I never met an atheist who fed me, but the Salvation Army did. When I visit poverty stricken villages in Nigeria I don't see any relief projects other than those being sponsored by Christian groups.

Statistically, you're not going to. Assuming we put the same effort into good works as the next Christian, you'd need to remember that there's still only 929 of us recorded in Ireland at the last census. Between all of us around the entire country, we might be able to manage one atheist organisation - and we wouldn't have the donations of the passive faithful to rely on.

Also, you're aware that Bill Gates is an atheist?

PDN wrote:

It was evangelical Christians who worked tirelessly to abolish the transatlantic slave trade, campaigned for the introduction of a minimum age of consent so as to stop child prostitution, & formed the earliest trade unions. People like William Wilberforce, Elizabeth Fry, William Booth, Martin Luther King etc. were driven by their faith to do good works

Evangelical Christians also owned slaves. The vast majority of pro-slavers were also Christian, and justified their slave-owning from the Bible. You prefer to shine the light on a few brave souls, but nearly all of those standing in the shadows are also Christians.

PDN wrote:

It is also true that many Christians have had (and still do have) massive blind spots in respect to social justice. Others have claimed to be Christians but have committed horrible acts. But to argue that in Christianity belief in God is irrelevant to good works is a perversion of history. Organized religion has often been used as a cloak for the greed & meglomania of hypocrites, but individual Christians who truly believe have consistently been making changes for the better.

I wouldn't argue it, of course, but your claims about atheists are equally ridiculous and just as prejudiced.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

If this were true then we should expect that atheists would be responsible for all the good works & social improvements.

Not really. Humans on the whole tend to be good. Christians can be good, atheists can be good, Hindus can be good.

The point is that Christianity doesn't say "Be good" , or even "Be good and God will reward you"

It says "Believe in God, and God will reward you"

It is often pointed out on this forum that no matter how good I am I am still going to hell because I do not believe in God. Although some would claim that because I don't believe in God I don't do good things, though thankfully that argument is far less common.

PDN wrote:

It was evangelical Christians who worked tirelessly to abolish the transatlantic slave trade, campaigned for the introduction of a minimum age of consent so as to stop child prostitution, & formed the earliest trade unions. People like William Wilberforce, Elizabeth Fry, William Booth, Martin Luther King etc. were driven by their faith to do good works

True, but considering that 95% of the population in Europe and America were Christians for most of that time that isn't particularly surprising. What religion would they be?

I could start listing off all non-Christian people throughout history that have attempted good things, but the debate would be rather pointless since I'm not claiming Christians cannot do good things. All humans can do good things.

But that doesn't change the fact that your religion teaches that good thinks will not be rewarded in the after life unless they are accompanied with believe and devotion to God. Why the second part is necessary is the heart of the issue.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

But the true Christian faith can always be distinguished from the false because it produces love, joy, peace etc.

I think that is Fred Phelps point. America isn't producing love joy and peace, it is producing the Iraq war, hurricane Katrina, 9/11, crime, drugs etc etc, all punishments from God because Americans have turned away from the true teachings of Christianity.

robindch

> When I was homeless & sleeping on the streets I never met an atheist
> who fed me, but the Salvation Army did.

Perhaps I did? I used to work for the Dublin Simon where, of the nine people I used to work with, only two were church-going christians (one prod + one methodist) and two more were atheists. I don't recall any catholics on my evening.

> When I visit poverty stricken villages in Nigeria I don't see any
> relief projects other than those being sponsored by Christian groups.

...and the majority of these christian groups are there to spread religion first, and help people second; the same is happening all over India and China. You may or may not recall, but last year while he was in Germany, the pope said that spreading religion in Africa is more important than helping people.

Most of the world's goverment aid, with the exception of some of the USA's, is effectively atheist, as it is religiously unaligned.

> It was evangelical Christians who worked tirelessly to abolish the
> transatlantic slave trade,

And christians enthusiastically supported slavery right up to the 19th century and only stopped doing so when revolutionary ideas concerning human rights began to spread from France following the anti-religious French Revolution. The bible, too, has many references to slavery (Luke 12:47-50 is a good example) where it is made perfectly clear that slavery is a normal part of society and that violence against slaves is expected.

> Organized religion has often been used as a cloak for the greed &
> meglomania of hypocrites, but individual Christians who truly
> believe have consistently been making changes for the better.

Yes, people who are/were christians have helped hugely in the past, but I suspect that most of these people would have helped out anyway whether they were christian, muslim, jewish or atheist. Correlation does not imply causality.

PDN

Come on Scofflaw, you and I both know there are more than 929 atheists in Ireland, most just aren't bothered enough to make an issue of it on the census form. Besides, why be limited to Ireland? What about all the committed atheists in North Korea and Communist China? There are almost a billion atheists registered in those two countries alone, so actually you outnumber evangelical Christians in the world today. On my last visit to China I didn't see a lot of evidence of their good works.

The truth is that any society I know of that has been officially atheist has also been violently repressive.

As for Bill Gates being an atheist, if you knew how I feel about Microsoft then you probably wouldn't use that as an argument. Yes, Bill Gates does a lot of philanthropic work.

[PHP]Evangelical Christians also owned slaves. The vast majority of pro-slavers were also Christian, and justified their slave-owning from the Bible. You prefer to shine the light on a few brave souls, but nearly all of those standing in the shadows are also Christians.[/PHP]

Yes, I clearly stated that many Christians have had blind spots when it comes to social justice. I strongly suspect that future generations will look on things we do now (both atheists & Christians) and wonder how we could do such things. We are all creatures of our age & culture, and we need the prophetic figures such as Wilberforce, Booth, Mandela etc who point the way to a better future.

I would also dispute your claim that most of those standing in the shadows were really Christians. There is a world of difference between Christendom (a repressive force where people are born into a so-called Christian society irrespective of personal conviction, and the Church (a group of people who are called together out of the wider society by a personal faith in Jesus Christ and a desire to follow His teachings). However much you, as an atheist, may dislike Christendom, I assure you that my contempt for it is much stronger.

Cordially,

PDN



I wouldn't argue it, of course, but your claims about atheists are equally ridiculous and just as prejudiced.

cordially,
Scofflaw[/QUOTE]

PDN

PDN wrote:

The truth is that any society I know of that has been officially atheist has also been violently repressive.

I doubt tibet was repressive and it was non-theistic

In any case, it's once again a case of correlation != causation
If I point out any christian societies that were repressive you'd just say "they're not proper christians then" right..

no true scotsman...

PDN

bluewolf wrote:

I doubt tibet was repressive and it was non-theistic

In any case, it's once again a case of correlation != causation
If I point out any christian societies that were repressive you'd just say "they're not proper christians then" right..

no true scotsman...

Yes, right, because there has never been, to my knowledge, a Christian society - nor, this side of heaven, should there be one.

But, are you prepared to argue that Stalin wasn't a true atheist? Or Mao?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote:

The point is that Christianity doesn't say "Be good" , or even "Be good and God will reward you"

It says "Believe in God, and God will reward you"

It is often pointed out on this forum that no matter how good I am I am still going to hell because I do not believe in God. Although some would claim that because I don't believe in God I don't do good things, though thankfully that argument is far less common.

But that doesn't change the fact that your religion teaches that good thinks will not be rewarded in the after life unless they are accompanied with believe and devotion to God. Why the second part is necessary is the heart of the issue.

I stand to be corrected, but I think you have a flawed understanding, wicknight. Jesus said that honouring God was top of the list then came loving your neighbour (and by extension everyone else). If you follow God then I think goodness follows you. Being good is part and parcel of being a Christian. Admittedly, that goodness is often at odds with the world, but that doesn't make the ideals of Christianity any less noble.

Why is the second part necessary (in bold)? I think that all goodness, compassion, kindness, love etc. comes from God. Believing in and honouring God isn't separate to being good, they are integrally linked - you cant truly have one without the other.

robindch

> there has never been, to my knowledge, a Christian society

Most of Europe, for most of the Middle Ages, was effectively controlled by one branch of christianity or another. And before that, the Roman Empire was controlled by christians and christianity from 325 or so onwards. After the middle ages, the influence of christianity waned, though the Papal States in central Italy did their level best to keep the idea of a christian state alive and flourishing. The Vatican, today, is surely a christian state? While the current administration in the USA is, would you not agree, somewhat christian-leaning too? Or are they all the wrong kinds of christian?

> are you prepared to argue that Stalin wasn't a true atheist? Or Mao?

As bluewolf and I said, correlation does not imply causation. There is no evidence at all that Stalin's atheism caused him to commit his crimes (notwithstanding apparently every christian thinking that it did). Same with Mao. Both were power-mad dictators prepared to cut all around them to stay in control. Nothing to do with god at all and quite wrong to think so.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Come on Scofflaw, you and I both know there are more than 929 atheists in Ireland, most just aren't bothered enough to make an issue of it on the census form.

That would depend on your definition of 'atheist'. While there are almost certainly more atheists than show up in the census (I don't believe we've nearly doubled our numbers in 4 years!), there are still not a lot.

PDN wrote:

Besides, why be limited to Ireland? What about all the committed atheists in North Korea and Communist China? There are almost a billion atheists registered in those two countries alone, so actually you outnumber evangelical Christians in the world today. On my last visit to China I didn't see a lot of evidence of their good works.

That is a particularly tiresome and thoughtless comment. Those countries are officially atheist, which is enforced as the only possible religious position, which means absolutely nothing in terms of whether those who choose to be atheists choose to do good works.

PDN wrote:

The truth is that any society I know of that has been officially atheist has also been violently repressive.

You are incapable of distinguishing cause from correlation, then. Communist countries are atheist to prevent an alternative universalist philosophy, or power structure, from weakening people's 'devotion' to communism.

As for actual violence - how many of the combatant countries in WW1 and WW2 were Christian countries?

PDN wrote:

As for Bill Gates being an atheist, if you knew how I feel about Microsoft then you probably wouldn't use that as an argument. Yes, Bill Gates does a lot of philanthropic work.

Hmm. I probably feel exactly the same about Microsoft and all its works, but I have to give credit to Bill Gates on a philanthropic level.

PDN wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Evangelical Christians also owned slaves. The vast majority of pro-slavers were also Christian, and justified their slave-owning from the Bible. You prefer to shine the light on a few brave souls, but nearly all of those standing in the shadows are also Christians.

Yes, I clearly stated that many Christians have had blind spots when it comes to social justice. I strongly suspect that future generations will look on things we do now (both atheists & Christians) and wonder how we could do such things. We are all creatures of our age & culture, and we need the prophetic figures such as Wilberforce, Booth, Mandela etc who point the way to a better future.

Indeed we seem to. However, to simply discount the long history of Biblical justification for atrocities as "many Christians have had blind spots" is to make the term Christian meaningless when it comes to arguing any defining characteristics.

PDN wrote:

I would also dispute your claim that most of those standing in the shadows were really Christians. There is a world of difference between Christendom (a repressive force where people are born into a so-called Christian society irrespective of personal conviction, and the Church (a group of people who are called together out of the wider society by a personal faith in Jesus Christ and a desire to follow His teachings). However much you, as an atheist, may dislike Christendom, I assure you that my contempt for it is much stronger.

I have no dislike of Christianity. I dislike the arrogant assumption of superiority, the blind failure to accept the wrongs done as well as the right, by Christianist apologists.

Even you, who seem able to draw a distinction between "Christendom" and Christianity, seem unable to do so in the case of atheism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

I doubt tibet was repressive and it was non-theistic

Hmm. Tibet was a religious government, and while Buddhism is non-theistic, I think that description is slightly misleading. As to whether it was repressive, there would have been the repression of the Bon-Po, and various monastic 'civil wars' that resulted in the repression of various monastic lineages.

bluewolf wrote:

In any case, it's once again a case of correlation != causation
If I point out any christian societies that were repressive you'd just say "they're not proper christians then" right..

no true scotsman...

For the good, we credit God and religion, for the bad we blame men...

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

PDN wrote:

Yes, right, because there has never been, to my knowledge, a Christian society - nor, this side of heaven, should there be one.

But, are you prepared to argue that Stalin wasn't a true atheist? Or Mao?

There are bad people who are atheists, there are good people who are atheists. An atheist dictator isn't the same as a society who's happy with atheism and generally atheist... and it has nothing to do with showing that atheists can't do good things because it doesn't.

Believing in and honouring God isn't separate to being good, they are integrally linked - you cant truly have one without the other.

Are you actually suggesting that atheists are incapable of being good?


Scofflaw yep, but the first one I could think of...

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Yes, right, because there has never been, to my knowledge, a Christian society - nor, this side of heaven, should there be one.

But, are you prepared to argue that Stalin wasn't a true atheist? Or Mao?

Are you prepared to argue that they were - as opposed to simply asserting it? The only evidence we have for Joe Stalin's beliefs is that he attended seminary. Mao allowed himself to be worshipped. Both attacked religion as a system that held back human development, and more importantly challenged their personal power, both replaced it with communist beliefs.

I must admit that personally, I consider communism a belief system. It may be non-theist, but so is Buddhism. It is certainly universalist and anti-scientific.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

Are you prepared to argue that they were - as opposed to simply asserting it? The only evidence we have for Joe Stalin's beliefs is that he attended seminary. Mao allowed himself to be worshipped. Both attacked religion as a system that held back human development, and more importantly challenged their personal power, both replaced it with communist beliefs.

I must admit that personally, I consider communism a belief system. It may be non-theist, but so is Buddhism. It is certainly universalist and anti-scientific.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Buddhism's not anti-scientific... or was it just communism you said that was?

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

Buddhism's not anti-scientific... or was it just communism you said that was?

Communism! While they prided themselves on being scientific, science was not allowed to challenge orthodoxy. Evolution, for example, was 'elitist'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

Communism!

Good - I was prepared to start ranting!