[total hijack]
Are Catholics the only ones that think Mary ascended bodily into heaven, or was there some mention of this in the bible?
[/]
Maybe back then. They were rather clannish. Maybe it was considered more destabilizing to their society then other things. I wasn’t alive back then, so I really can’t comment, though, they still had a much more merciful law system than the Babylonians, Phillistines, or any other “civilized” group.
**
So the person who considers God to be petty asks why God isn’t more petty. The whole point of having the laws written explicitly as they were was for humanity to come to embrace the law in spirit and in doing so better itself. Humanity had to implement the law itself in order to understand its real purpose. For an analogy think back to when you started school and first leanred to read. The teacher probably separated the class into 3 or 4 reading groups based on ability. Those in the bottom group generally received more explicit guidance on how to read. Those at the top recieved more guidance on comprehending the meanings of what they were reading. Which group do you think God was working with at the time? Contrast that with Paul’s teachings of the law. You see a dramatic shift in focus.
**
That’s why people keep debating about it. I’ve never held the view that the Bible is a flawless writing. It’s at most divinely inspired, but the events were still being interpreted through human perception. One’s relationship with God is in many ways a personal thing. It is established by your perception. The Bible is a guide for that. It contains some fact, some myth, some opinion. God doesn’t want people doing a half-assed job of following him. (Pascal’s wager is a joke.) It’s something you really are supposed to think about and make a definite decision to do, not something you do because “it seemed like a good thing at the time.”
Ummmm…correct me if I’m wrong, but by God not showing us he exists, isn’t he giving us a choice of lifestyle to be made? You’ve chosen not to follow him. I’ve chosen to do so. Seems pretty clear that we’ve gotten a choice, doesn’t it? Let me ask you this: if God showed up today and told you He existed, would you follow him?
And I wouldn’t say religions are contradictory. That’s an extreme statement. For every instance you give where religions contradict, I can give you an instance where they agree. Hardly contradictory.
**
You might think that, but speak for yourself.
BTW, leprosy in the OT refers to all forms of skin diseases, not just the actual disease itself (it’s the whole “losing something in the translation” thing).
God does not give us a choice to follow Him or not by not showing He exists. IF He did show He existed, then we nonbeleivers would have a choice, but right now I have no more choice to follow God than I do to follow Lazarus Long or Sherlock Holmes. I have to think a person actually exists before I can be said to choose to follow or not follow that person in any meaningful sense.
Gaudere, as ever, brings an important point to the fray. We’ve got a sort of compounded choice here; one, the choice to believe or not to believe in a being like God and, two, a choice to follow this god if/once it is recognized that it exists. Making it seem like there is only one choice would be equating true Satanists with atheists, something that I think is a pretty big error.
Actually, from what I understand, LaVey Satanists are atheists. LaVey called his movement Satanism because he was rebelling against the opression he saw within the Church. It was mainly just to annoy people. They don’t believe in an actual God or Satan incarnate. Any Satanists out there can correct me if I’ve got this wrong.
You and Gaudere also have a valid point about it being a compound decision. But you missed my point. I was referring to the following:
I believe God exists. I have also made the choice to follow Him. I am not the only one to conclude that God exists, nor am I the only one who has chosen to follow Him. I have made that lifestyle choice.
I also did not “choose” to believe God exists. My perceptions have led me to belive that He exists. It wasn’t like I got up one morning and said “I think I’ll believe in God today.”
For me, I do know that following God is a lifestyle choice to be made, and I have made it. You might not know whether there is or isn’t a lifestyle choice to be made, but don’t speak for the whole world based on your perceptions alone.
- Orthodox too. 2. No.
LaVey satanists are not atheists. The introduction to his The Satanic Rituals makes it pretty clear, though he does stress that Satanism is not “simply” an inversion of Christianity. I have never delved more than supeficially into the occult, but from what I have read of the Satanic Bible (which I don’t own) and The Satanic Rituals (which I do) it seems more like a vague form of egotisitcal paganism that uses Christianity’s Satan as a figurehead.
Someone may know far more about this than me, however.
As far as the compound choice goes, you do choose to believe in God, for don’t we all more or less have the same evidence for his existence? Perhaps not. Is this a huge tangent?
From the Church of Stan website:
Actually, from this statement we can conclude that LaVey Satanists are really Sith Warriors bent on destroying the Jedi. 
Seriously, though, it uses Satan as a figurehead, but not as a cognizant power. Satan represents the dark nature of humanity, much like Einstein’s concept of God. Neither implies existence of an “intelligent” being. More like a metaphysical essence.
**
Hard to tell–we may all have the same evidence but percieve it differently, or we may be given different evidence, or we may have preconcieved notions cloud our perceptions, or any single element or combination of elements from these or an nearly endless list of other factors one could think of. But than we start getting into metaphysical arguments (and this thread has already slipped into the metaphysical many times as it is) which will be a total hijack of the OP. So yeah, its a huge tangent.
Ummmm…Church of Satan, not Stan.
For info on the Church of Stan, visit the following:
Well, I think I can pretty much say that anyone who doesn’t believe Being X exists cannot choose to follow or not follow Being X. When you speak of atheists choosing to not follow God (as you did when you said glee chose not to follow God, unless I am sorely mistaken and glee believes God exists but chooses not to follow him), I think you speak nonsense.
Hoopy Frood:
Would that be Stan A? 
I find it difficult to reconcile your description of a loving God with One who demands the death penalty for cursing parents.
I don’t see why you’re comparing Godless societies either - it seems rather weak to say God was better than them.
I don’t think God is petty - I don’t think He exists.
I can’t accept your teaching analogy. The Old Testament God didn’t hesitate to fry false prophets, destroy entire towns and inflict plagues on countries. So why did His Commandments have to be explained gently, so humanity could gradually come to understand?
As others have said, this is not a rational choice.
God has revealed Himself to you - that’s fine for you. Now you can choose to obey Him or not.
If God exists, and made me, why did he give me a scientific enquiring mind? Having done that, why won’t He give me scientific evidence (or a personal revelation)?
If the Old Testament God turned up, I would cower in fear. (Perhaps He would ask me to kill my first-born child to ‘test’ me.)
The New Testament God would be great.
You seem to have a different definition of contradictory to me.
As I understand it, Judaism says Jesus was not the son of God, and that the Messiah will come in the future.
If Jesus was not the son of God, where does that leave Christianity?
Ditto for Islam, Buddhism, etc.
As I understand it, Protestants say the Pope is not God’s representative on earth.
Should Christians listen to the Pope’s teachings and commandments?
As I understand it, Mormons say that God has passed further teachings to them.
Are they right? Doesn’t this matter?
I appreciate that most religions give good ideas on how to live here on earth. But surely only one of Judaism and Christianity can be correct. Therefore there is a contradiction (and a very important one).
Actually, they weren’t exactly Godless. They had their gods as well.
Capital punishment has an interesting history in the Bible. For example, Cain’s slaying of Abel was punished through banishment and exile. As a matter of fact, Cain was marked by God in that anyone who killed Cain as retribution for the slaying of his brother would be severely punished. Before “the flood,” capital punishment is frowned upon.
However, after the flood, it seems things kind of change. Genesis 9:6 turns around and says: *Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. *
So now the punishment for murder is death. One could say that this passage is predictive and not directive (as in a pay it forward kind of sense), but most likely it is directive.
Flash forward to the ancient Hebrew civilization. Capital punishment is used for certain crimes as long as overwhelming evidence of guilt (including two eyewitnesses to the crime) can be determined. (Note: if any of those eyewitnesses are found to be lying about the crime, they can be put to death themselves).
With the whole cursing thing, one is now getting into semantics. First of all, there is no implication that this law applies to children. The word son in Hebrew (ben) is indefinite. It can refer to females as well as males, and to grown adults as well as children. Cursing your parents does not mean merely telling your father to “Fuck off!” (Or whatever the ancient Hebrew equivalent to that is). It is active rebellion against society and its constructs. For example, a similar passage to the cursing scenario which is in Deuteronomy goes as follows:
I don’t see to many 10 year olds being gluttonous drunkards, even back then. Furthermore, the son is brought before the magistrate, therefore, the son has full capability to defend himself. (And notice the mother and father both needing to be there, the two eyewitness thing again.) Also, in the Hebrew translation (or so I’ve heard, since I don’t know Hebrew), the words used for stubborn and rebellious imply that this is a standard thing. This isn’t just some teenager with raging hormones, this is a grown adult who has rebelled and lashed out against all authority, even those who care for him the most. His contempt and derison towards all in authority is habitual.
Basically if act was viewed as something that could upset society significantly, it was punishable by death. For instance you were also put to death for mistreating animals (God, the founding member of PETA).
**
You said that the God of the OT was petty. I was referring to something else you suggested God do which I view would have been even more petty by your standards.
**
My analogy was not to imply gentleness. It was to imply explicitness in instructions. The shear anal-retentiveness of how many daily tasks were to be performed. The “dumbing down” of the law, in order for people to actually come to understand the purposes behind it. Then one could expand from there. The laws were harsh. So was life. Look around you. Humanity fears sudden changes. We always have. We tend to shun things that violate our “comfort zone.”
**
Maybe he has and you have noticed. Maybe God doesn’t want to come to you. Maybe he wants you to come to him. Only by actively searching for him, will you appreciate the journey it took to get there. Beats me. It’s not really any of my business. I took issue with you implying my following of God had no foundation.
I guess I do have different definition of contradictory than you. My definition implies mutual exclusion in all aspects. A light bulb is either on or off. It’s not “slightly on”. There is some overlap in the beliefs between religions. There are also many areas where they do contradict. However, even if one religion is right in an area that contradicts others, it does not automatically invalidate every other religion out there.
Since you talk about the rational so much, do you want me to start coming up with instances where multiple groups of scientists have disagreed about the conclusions from the same set of experiments? Are you going to consist all those groups mutually exclusive as well. Is only one group correct? Or do we use discrimination in analyzing their results and their procedures and figure out for ourselves who we think came closest to getting accurate results. But isn’t the scientific process supposed to be standardized somewhat? Isn’t there overlap in the way scientific methods are conducted? Yet still, there’s disagreement.
Although, I will grant you that the Bell Curve most likely belongs in a mutual exclusion scenario.
** Polycarp **; That’s interesting. I honestly didn’t know that.
You mean to say that every believer of every faith, has a commandment to try to convince us, atheists, a god excist?
I’m serious. I know Jehova’s Witnesses go from door to door, but I didn’t know it is a commandment for Catholics, Protestants or whatever. …?
Originally posted by Hoopy Frood:
This is amusing on so very many levels. Don’t forget that there was quite a personality change between OT and NT, as well. That deity, he seems to be all over the place.
So, this favored deity of yours is not advocating child abuse, just stoning to death of those who are rebelling against societal norms. Gives me a whole new level of appreciation for living in this more enlightened time. And why, then, is it necessary for this besotted agitator’s parents to testify against him? If he’s a grown adult, wouldn’t there be plenty of others to testify that he’s a less-than-exemplary citizen?
So very glad that I do not live in a society based on the above. Else I fear I would have been stoned to death well over twenty years ago.
Except that such stark differences as, “Jesus was the Messiah,” vs. “Pfah! The Messiah has not yet come,” are a bit more contradictory than, “. . .some overlap in the beliefs between religions.” It seems pretty clear cut from where I stand.
Except that scientists, if they are worth their salt, will continue to experiment and increase their understanding. How many denominations exist (and I know that there is sometimes a striking difference between denominations and individual practitioners, but denominations are the ones who get the press) that continue to refine their understanding, and how many say, “We’re right! End of story!”?
Waste
Flick Lives!
I can’t speak for other religions – but it’s quite explicit in Jesus’s instructions to all Christians.
No, the job is not to “let you know that God exists” – but rather that God (who exists) is interested in a personal relationship with you (and all other people) and wants to warn you off from problems lying ahead of you. See us less as the equivalent of activists for a political agenda and more as matchmakers, and you’ve got a better handle on it.
And, of course, the assignment is not to do a particular form of evangelism, but just to do it. I’ve found that trying to scare the Hell out of people (literally) is not effective among intelligent folks, but that being open about my beliefs and behaving as Christ commanded (to the extent I can) does make people feel more inclined to think that I might have a hold on something besides a major delusion. (Plus, it makes me feel good about what I’m doing.) Door-to-door evangelism is another option usually followed by LDS and JWs and a few independent Baptist groups, simply because AFAIK it rarely has any significant effect. (I can visualize two Episcopalians going door-to-door with a Bible, a Book of Common Prayer, a quart of chablis, a box of crackers, and some brie. ;))
LOL **Polycarp **
mmmmm, brie.
Thanks for explaining. You know, I have a very Protestant friend, but she never tries to ‘matchmake’
Is she a bad christian?
The original question was if Atheists would go to hell from a Christian perspective. This seems to first have deteriorated to 'Are Christians more doomed for saying that God exists than Atheists for saying that God doesn’t?" and then headed of into 'Who invented Hell?" it almost got back on track for a while beforeit hit right back into “Who’r the bigger idiot?”.
First of all the question was…
Second of allno matter what the question was arguments like ‘It says in Josha 23:1…’ or ‘Darwin proved evelotionaty theory by…’ (BTW it is sophomoric to put evolution in juxtapostition to religion…they are not mutually exclusive. I hold the school board of Tennessee capable of that, but not anyone who reads or frequents the dope).
Faith is not an issue of proof at all, hence trying to disprove it is at best futile.
Fourth of all the questions was: " Are all Athiests going to hell? Even the “good” ones?" and it was given out of a Christian perspective.
Fifth of all the questions was: " Are all Athiests going to hell? Even the “good” ones?" and it was given out of a Christian perspective.
etc etc
Now… I happen to be an Atheist of Christian culture that sees no need to deny others the comfort/pleasure/joy or whatever that faith brings them. I am also deeply interseted in Christian moral and ethics (I should be…it governs the society I live in). I happen to know for a fact that this issue is seen very differently depending on Christian denomination and even more so across the Protestant Catholic divide…I’d love to hear some views on that, NOT on whether the Bible prooves that God is out there or if it condones murder, rape and genocide or not…most of us probably have a copy, a mind and basic reading skills.
Now this is a topic of Theology, correct?.. so stop slugging it like vain pugilists that just fight for the sake of it and theologize!
And sorry for all the typos and spelling errors…that went a little too quick!