Reply to: I am an atheist.

[sasguru]

Is it? First time I've heard this stuff about previous relationships no longer being meaningful. (Btw, what's desirable/heavenly about that?). Just one of the many things on which believers make up whatever "truth" they can most comfortably live with.

.

Quite. Was going to ask where in the Bible that's mentioned, but then realised what's the point?
Arrant bollux.

[formant]

It's pretty clear that things are different in Heaven; a new body and the fact that marriage relationships are no longer meaningful are just two others.

Is it? First time I've heard this stuff about previous relationships no longer being meaningful. (Btw, what's desirable/heavenly about that?). Just one of the many things on which believers make up whatever "truth" they can most comfortably live with.

The bible is very clear that when you will die you will realise that God's logic is perfect and only true justice is possible. So the fact you'd realise your daughter deserves her lot is answered - in the same way that if your daughter killed someone you might agree with the judge's sentence as being appropriate.

The bible is "pretty clear" on a lot of stuff (Evil Bible Home Page has a lovely collection of all the not-so-pretty stuff). No doubt Christians tend to find all sorts of ways of interpreting the gruesomeness away.

[MyUserName]

It's pretty clear that things are different in Heaven; a new body and the fact that marriage relationships are no longer meaningful are just two others.

The bible is very clear that when you will die you will realise that God's logic is perfect and only true justice is possible. So the fact you'd realise your daughter deserves her lot is answered - in the same way that if your daughter killed someone you might agree with the judge's sentence as being appropriate.

However the part about not being sad about it even if you realise it is totally justified, that is the one good question I've seen you ask on the subject. You might agree your daughter should go to prison in the above example, but that wouldn't mean you weren't upset by it. Your emotional response to things is not tethered to what you logically know to be right.

I shall think about that further.

How can it be justified that she is punished for not believing something that is designed to be without proof? If her life experience has lead her to be very skeptical due to events that have happened then that is not her fault. She cannot choose to believe something because she would like to - she can hope something is true but that would not be true belief.

Also, this is probably just semantics but it would not be that she was in prison - it would be that she was being horribly tortured forever for something that is not really her fault (in this example).

[sasguru]

A question to theists:

Is there anything that your children could do (including not loving you back) which would cause you to think that locking them in a basement and torturing them is morally acceptable?

But God has a different morality that you don't understand blah blah blah.

[sasguru]

You can explain heaven and hell very simply as the carrot and stick for the unsophisticated, uneducated people whom the church was trying to recruit.
The idea of hell was created because you had to have an analagous eternal "bad" place to heaven.
Complete cobblers.
The fact that modern educated people believe this nonsense is mind-boggling.
Not to mention the circular reasoning they use to maintain their belief in the fantasy.

[OwlHoot]

However the part about not being sad about it even if you realise it is totally justified, that is the one good question I've seen you ask on the subject. You might agree your daughter should go to prison in the above example, but that wouldn't mean you weren't upset by it. Your emotional response to things is not tethered to what you logically know to be right.

I shall think about that further.

I agree with Sas and others who have mentioned it that some logical aspects of Heaven and Hell are problematic to say the least. For example, why would any divine being or demigod like Satan _bother_ making damned souls suffer where this was not manifest, as a deterrent, to sinners still living? Why not simply concentrate on tempting the living, and on their death simply cast the rejects into oblivion?

I guess a theologian would reply that a manifest divine deterrent to evil would make it too easy to be virtuous, making faith less necessary and virtue less worthy of reward. Or perhaps preserving a multitude damned souls is Satan's reproach to God by showing how many of God's creations are defective and end up suffering. Still seems rather pointless though.

[MyUserName]

A question to theists:

Is there anything that your children could do (including not loving you back) which would cause you to think that locking them in a basement and torturing them is morally acceptable?

[sasguru]

I am now firmly of the opinion that in the end the Church and it's beliefs has been a corrosive influence on the development of man.

The cultural and physical vandalism that was perpetrated by the Church is staggering, what the Barbarians didn't do the Church did for them.

Fair enough. It is a coherent interpretation of the evidence - but it's hardly mainstream, and highly debatable.

Nonsense. For years the church propagated the earth-centric view of the universe, suppressing or killing nascent "scientists" who thought otherwise. That's not debatable, that's fact.
The enlightenment was in effect, the rejection of centuries old superstitious and religious rubbish.

[MyUserName]

Fair enough. It is a coherent interpretation of the evidence - but it's hardly mainstream, and highly debatable.

Like most of the bible?

[NotAllThere]

Fair enough. It is a coherent interpretation of the evidence - but it's hardly mainstream, and highly debatable.

[Gibbon]

As for being a defunct and shallow philosophy (from the context there seems to be an implication that pagan philosophy was so much better), that's so much nonsense, so much at variance with history, that it's not even worth rebutting. Complete horse feathers.

But hey, if it reinforces your prejudices - go for it!

I'm not prejudiced, I've spent years reading biblical and ancient texts and visiting both churches and classical remains. This is the conclusion I've come to through inquiry, with an open mind and at times I have been swayed to your persuasion. I am now firmly of the opinion that in the end the Church and it's beliefs has been a corrosive influence on the development of man.

'pagan philosophy' didn't exist, the philosophy of Plato down to Cicero is not one of superstition but of reason.

The cultural and physical vandalism that was perpetrated by the Church is staggering, what the Barbarians didn't do the Church did for them.

[MyUserName]

As for being a defunct and shallow philosophy (from the context there seems to be an implication that pagan philosophy was so much better), that's so much nonsense, so much at variance with history, that it's not even worth rebutting. Complete horse feathers.

But hey, if it reinforces your prejudices - go for it!

Morals and society have evolved over the years. They did this mainly by ignoring Christianity when it suited them and not when it did not.

[NotAllThere]

What people should realise is Christianity’s heritage. In 312CE when Constantine declared toleration for all religions and began to promote Christianity only approximately 15% of people were Christian and these were spread around in many varieties depending on geographic location within the Roman Empire. Constantine is strongly suggested by modern scholars to have chosen Christianity because of the obedience of its followers to their bishops. The corruption and abuse started at the first council of Nicaea when Constantine sought to unify the variant cults and have himself recognised as Gods leader on earth, One God, One Faith, One Emperor was the intention and so began the conspiracy of state and church to control peoples actions and beliefs and which is why kings and queens are anointed. Interestingly, and as SAS alluded to earlier, despite Constantine’s policy of persuasion of conversion to the new faith the educated elite were fairly impervious to it; but the lower classes who had much to gain by there being a better life after this one were converted with less effort. Constantine, frustrated by this as it kept Christian building to the periphery of Rome amongst other things went off to found Constantinople as a Christian capital.

By the end of the 4th century paganism was still alive and kicking much to the chagrin of the Christian community and so Theodosius effectively forced Christianity on everyone and took part in the destruction of Pagan sites. Therefore Christianity was an imposed religion forced upon people by the state much like the Islamists today imposing Sharia law where they can. This forced imposition lasted for the next 1.5 millennia until the aptly named enlightenment. Only recently has it changed and become ‘tolerant’ and only because events have forced it to back off from literal interpretations. Another thing worth noting is that Mohammed noted the control aspects of Christianity and extrapolated it out to found Islam to unify the Arab peoples. A sobering thought given the state of the world at present.

It is a defunct and shallow philosophy that requires fear to persuade people to behave well rather than the reasoned arguments of the ancients. The morality issue of the Christian religion is a last feeble attempt to find a reason for existence in the modern world. People certainly had moral frame works before it and most have now without having to believe.

That's the heritage of the Catholic and Orthodox church. However, that isn't all that's to be said about Christianity. It was the reformation that started the road toward non-state churches. Under protestantism, various non-state sects - such as the baptists - found it easier to practice their understanding of the religion. Throughout the past 2000 years there have always been groups of Christians (often persecuted by "the church") in and out of the state church, who haven't sold out to the world system - aka "Babylon the Great".

As for being a defunct and shallow philosophy (from the context there seems to be an implication that pagan philosophy was so much better), that's so much nonsense, so much at variance with history, that it's not even worth rebutting. Complete horse feathers.

But hey, if it reinforces your prejudices - go for it!

[northernladuk]

That's why CUK is still worth it sometimes. In amongst the dross, you get true quality stuff like this.

Hmm, maybe I ought to go back and read it on that recommendation. It was the one post, as well as all of yours Sas, that I didn't actually bother to read.

[d000hg]

So if I was a Christian and my daughter was not then I would be at paradise in heaven, knowing she was being tortured for eternity for her lack of belief - something which by definition is not her choice (you cannot chose whether you deep down believe things) and I would not care?

I would need some pretty powerful brain altering mojo for that, caring for my children is an intrinsic part of me and if you take that away I will no longer be 'me'. Hence I will not be in heaven, a distored version of me will be.

It's pretty clear that things are different in Heaven; a new body and the fact that marriage relationships are no longer meaningful are just two others.

The bible is very clear that when you will die you will realise that God's logic is perfect and only true justice is possible. So the fact you'd realise your daughter deserves her lot is answered - in the same way that if your daughter killed someone you might agree with the judge's sentence as being appropriate.

However the part about not being sad about it even if you realise it is totally justified, that is the one good question I've seen you ask on the subject. You might agree your daughter should go to prison in the above example, but that wouldn't mean you weren't upset by it. Your emotional response to things is not tethered to what you logically know to be right.

I shall think about that further.