Do you think Christians look down on non-Christians?

[JThunder]

@Lobohan

Think for a second. 85% of Christians believe they’re going to heaven. Of that group, what percentage do you think assume that their loved ones are going to heaven?

Oh, no you don’t. You don’t get to pull a bait-and-switch on us.

You specifically said, “Believing in god is easy. Living forever and never truly losing anyone you love is worth any amount of sacrifice.” The clear implication is that belief in God means that one must also believe that one will not tbe separated from one’s loved ones. You have done nothing to prove that claim.

“But 85% of Christians believe that they’ll go to heaven!” you say. True, but being a theist doesn’t automatically make someone a Christian. And by your own cite, even among Christians, not all of them are convinced they’ll go to heaven. And even if they do, the question remains… will all of their loved ones go there as well?

So you ask, “Of that group, what percentage do you think assume that their loved ones are going to heaven?” You’re clearly making a huge assumption with this statement – namely, that most if not all Christians believe that all their loved ones will be saved as well. Sorry, fella, but suppositions are not a substitute for evidence. Nor are individual beliefs any substitute for the official teachings of the various denominations.

The point is that belief in God does NOT guarantee being with one’s loved ones in eternity. Quite the contrary; it says that if one’s loved ones reject Christ, then they won’t get to share in heaven. And even if it did guarantee that one would be reunited with every single loved one, that doesn’t mean that no sacrifice is involved. Huge sacrifices can be necessary in the pursuit of one’s faith.

“But sacrifice is easy!” you say. “You just go to the social club on Sunday and feel sorry for your sin.” This shows me that you are making NO effort to understand why Christians believe as they do, or what they believe, or even what sacrifice is.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of how certain atheistic elements on the Dope look down on Christians. There is no attempt to understand what Christians believe or why they do so. Instead, these people presuppose that Christians must surely believe in God because it’s “easy” or “comforting,” with no regard for the hardships and tremendous sacrifices that are often required by the faith. And these people pat themselves on the back; after all, it’s surely not possible for anyone to choose atheism because they find it comforting to believe that they won’t be accountable to anyone in eternity.

[dropzone]

Non-Christians? Shit, I have to regularly remind myself that I go to a Lutheran church because I automatically look down on Protestants!

[Lobohan]

@JThunder

Oh, no you don’t. You don’t get to pull a bait-and-switch on us.

Okay. Show me where I bait-and-switched.

You specifically said, “Believing in god is easy. Living forever and never truly losing anyone you love is worth any amount of sacrifice.” The clear implication is that belief in God means that one must also believe that one will not tbe separated from one’s loved ones. You have done nothing to prove that claim.

Yes I have. The vast majority of Christians believe they are going to heaven. They think that the amount of work they’re putting in is more than sufficient.

“But 85% of Christians believe that they’ll go to heaven!” you say. True, but being a theist doesn’t automatically make someone a Christian. And by your own cite, even among Christians, not all of them are convinced they’ll go to heaven. And even if they do, the question remains… will all of their loved ones go there as well?

Those who think they’re going to heaven most likely think that their loved ones are going to. Since most Christians don’t work very hard to go to heaven, presumably they accept that other people will go too. In fact 72% of Americans think at least half of Christians will go to heaven. Your denial is laughable.

So you ask, “Of that group, what percentage do you think assume that their loved ones are going to heaven?” You’re clearly making a huge assumption with this statement – namely, that most if not all Christians believe that all their loved ones will be saved as well. Sorry, fella, but suppositions are not a substitute for evidence. Nor are individual beliefs any substitute for the official teachings of the various denominations.

You are bringing exactly zero evidence for your side. I’ve shown that most Christians think they are going to heaven. It’s logical enough to assume that most of those who think they are going probably think their loved ones are going too. Since more than half of Christians think they’re going to heaven, the bar can’t be very high.

The point is that belief in God does NOT guarantee being with one’s loved ones in eternity. Quite the contrary; it says that if one’s loved ones reject Christ, then they won’t get to share in heaven. And even if it did guarantee that one would be reunited with every single loved one, that doesn’t mean that no sacrifice is involved. Huge sacrifices can be necessary in the pursuit of one’s faith.

No there aren’t. Religion is easy, it’s for people who don’t want to face oblivion or the loss of someone forever. You’re clearly wrong if you think most Christians don’t think the majority of their loved ones are going to heaven.

“But sacrifice is easy!” you say. “You just go to the social club on Sunday and feel sorry for your sin.” This shows me that you are making NO effort to understand why Christians believe as they do, or what they believe, or even what sacrifice is.

Christians believe what they do for many reasons.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of how certain atheistic elements on the Dope look down on Christians. There is no attempt to understand what Christians believe or why they do so. Instead, these people presuppose that Christians must surely believe in God because it’s “easy” or “comforting,” with no regard for the hardships and tremendous sacrifices that are often required by the faith. And these people pat themselves on the back; after all, it’s surely not possible for anyone to choose atheism because they find it comforting to believe that they won’t be accountable to anyone in eternity.

Oblivion is hardly comforting. And it’s amazing that you can manage to pat yourself on the back for taking the easy road.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Logically, it can’t be Heaven if your loved ones aren’t there.

[Zoe]

DTC, I’ll be sure to remind God that you are concerned about her lack of logic.

Kintalis: In order that the bliss of the saints may be more delightful for them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, it is given to them to see perfectly the punishment of the damned. - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

You are a scholarly voice crying in the wilderness, Kintalis! I can at least believe that it is such lines of thought which Der Trihs might then have misinterpreted to mean that they actually enjoyed watching the suffering of the condemned and that this was one of the things that made heaven most appealing! That’s quite different. From what Thomas Aquinas has written I can believe that seeing how dreadful the suffering of the damned is gives them even greater joy in being with God.

Sophistry and Illusion, I concede that Jonathan Edwards is in some agreement with Thomas Aquinas, but that does not compare fully with Der Trihs claim:

…A major attraction of heaven is getting to watch the sinners scream forever in agony.

Sophistry and Illusion: Sociopathic, indeed; and yet Edwards is one of the most prominent American historical theologians (and the author of other such timeless classics as “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”)

In the 1950’s when I first read this sermon in my high school American literature class, the sermon was outstanding not as sound theology, but as an example of the sad techniques that some early ministers tried to use to scare people into converting to Christianity. We were small town/rural Bible Belt and Southern and the sermon was laughable even to us. That’s what made it a “timeless classic.” We were mighty glad how far we had come in theology in the 200 plus years since it had been delivered. Another fifty years hasn’t changed my mind, but there are more people now who seem to be focused on the “angry God” again.

Mississippienne: I do think that some Christians relish telling others they will burn if they’re not saved – I saw Evangelicals at Mississippi College (an extremely Baptist school) telling a Hindu girl that she was going to Hell if she wasn’t saved, and they really seemed to take pleasure in it that wasn’t your standard ‘I’m saving your heathen soul’ self-congratulatory feeling.

Did they say they were taking pleasure? What did they say that resulted in your thinking that?

[Lars_Aruns]

@Zoe

Did they say they were taking pleasure? What did they say that resulted in your thinking that?

I wasn’t there, of course, but if they adopted the same smug tone a bunch of bad christians once adopted with me - “You’re going to hell, muahaha! We’re going to watch you suffer and rejoice!” - then I’d say that was a strong hint.

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

A better question would be do the vast majority of Christians understand it? From the link above 85% of believers think they will go to heaven. What is your guess about how many of those actually understand with any level of detail the faith they’ve chosen to believe? Most Christians in my experience are woefully ignorant about their faith. They believe in a fuzzy sort of way that go to church, be good and you go to heaven. And when their dad dies, they think, “well he was a good man, he’s in heaven.”

Christianity is easy. It’s all about the softening of hard realities. There are strong Christians, but you don’t have to be strong in the least to be one.

There are two factors in play here. First, I suggest you yourself are experiencing a bit of confirmation bias.

More importantly, a Christian who believes that faith alone is necessary and sufficient for salvation, and ends his examination of the issue there, is, I grant you, choosing an easier path. For those who believe that “faith without works is dead” the path is a bit rockier… and, i would argue, the faith is marginally more likely to have been examined in more detail.

By lumping all Christians together, you blur some important distinctions.

[Bricker]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Logically, it can’t be Heaven if your loved ones aren’t there.

I’m reminded of an old Ashleigh Brilliant aphorism: “When I reach true enlightenment, I’ll let you know (if letting you know still seems important).”

While I certainly understand your view NOW about Heaven, it’s entirely possible that when you arrive, you’ll have a very different perception about the place.

[Der_Trihs]

@Bricker

While I certainly understand your view NOW about Heaven, it’s entirely possible that when you arrive, you’ll have a very different perception about the place.

The problem with your argument is that it actually make Heaven look worse. “When you go to Heaven, you won’t even care if your loved ones are in Hell” is not exactly appealing to any but the utterly selfish. It sounds rather like going to Heaven turns you sociopathic.

[Sandwich]

@Sophistry_and_Illusion

I’m not surprised by this. I associate the view in question with Puritans/early-ish Aglo-American Protestants, which is why I’m not surprised that **Dio **recollects reading something about it in The Pilgrim’s Progress. I doubt if many today would believe or openly express this view. It’s pretty old-school angry God stuff. (Come to think of it, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear someone like Phelps express it–he and Edwards have a lot in common.)

That’s the problem with eternal verities, you just can’t keep track of the changes:D.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

I do think the feeling has a tendency to become more pronounced in religion, though.

I think it is even more pronounced when considering disparities in education, intelligence, income, wealth and looks.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Zoe

In the 1950’s when I first read this sermon in my high school American literature class, the sermon was outstanding not as sound theology, but as an example of the sad techniques that some early ministers tried to use to scare people into converting to Christianity. We were small town/rural Bible Belt and Southern and the sermon was laughable even to us. That’s what made it a “timeless classic.” We were mighty glad how far we had come in theology in the 200 plus years since it had been delivered. Another fifty years hasn’t changed my mind, but there are more people now who seem to be focused on the “angry God” again.

Here’s one interesting commentary on this sermon, and how it fits in with Jonathan Edwards’s preaching style in general.

Why did Jonathan Edwards preach this way? He had a theory of persuasion which he summarized in the phrase, “the will is as the most apparent good is.” That is, the human will is inclined toward good things, but it is a short-sighted will. It does not incline to the greatest good, but to the good it can see most clearly. So it will choose a penny today over a dollar tomorrow, or it will choose instant gratification over long-term satisfaction. Most evil comes from this inversion in the proper hierarchical order of goods: by inclining and consenting to the most apparent good rather than the greatest good, we turn lesser goods into idols and forsake the One who is Goodness.

A preacher, therefore, has an interesting task. He has to take the greatest good and make it the most apparent good for his listeners. He has to speak of invisible, spiritual realities in such a way that his hearers get a sense of their reality. If he can show them, by compelling description, a great good which they had not previously entertained, their wills will be as that good is. They will turn to it, convert to it. It will have an irresistible draw for their wills. In most of his sermons, Edwards took up this task and described things like the character of God, the “excellencies” or beauties of Christ, the plan of redemption, and heaven as “a world of love.” He excelled at preaching the roof off of the church building so that his listeners could see the pure spiritual “divine and supernatural light” and fall in love with the God who is “the foundation and fountain of all being and beauty.”

The same theory of persuasion is operant in “Sinners,” but Edwards is approaching his task from the opposite side. Instead of making heaven the most apparent good, Edwards describes hell vividly enough to render it the most apparent bad. Instead of preaching the roof off, he preaches the floorboards rotten. Sin drags us down all the time, but we are easily insensible of it; it is the greatest evil, but not the most apparent evil. By the time Edwards is done describing sin and its effects, its loathsomeness is so conspicuously evident that his hearers cry out. Their wills recoil from the bad. We may prefer the positive approach, and wish for sermons that succeed in showing us the goodness of God and the glories of heaven. But in principle, I cannot think of any objection that would outlaw the opposite approach, the approach taken in “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

[Baker]

I know some Christians look down on others, or pity them, for not being Christian. But folks like that would look down on others for something, it just happens to be religion. It could be the school you go to, how rich you are, the color of your skin, or whatever.

I’m a pretty devout Christian, but I don’t look down on anyone who’s not of my faith. If I did I’d have to look down on my sister, and that isn’t going to happen.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Well, according to a lot of license plate holders 'round these parts, “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven”.

I leave it up to the (re-)reader to determine whether that means they look down on others or not.

For what it’s worth, I’m not a Christian and I look down on everyone.

[The_Second_Stone]

Certainly there are many Christians with this attitude, as there are with virtually every other group combination of people no matter how categorized. It is a part of human nature for many people. So it exists. However, it is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

While I certainly understand your view NOW about Heaven, it’s entirely possible that when you arrive, you’ll have a very different perception about the place.

So do you think the concept of “loved ones” disappears once you die, and thus, we cease to care about the people we called family and friends when we were alive?

The issue that Diogenes raised was one of many quandries that made me eschew religious dogma.

[JThunder]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Your “correction” was inaccurate, and it’s kind of ridiculous to keep trying to tell atheists they must beleive X, because your own misunderstanding of the definition requires it.

My correction was supported by encyclopedias of philosophy and a wide range of dictionaries. Your retort simply amounts to saying “You’re wrong!”

And I did NOT say that “atheists must believe X.” I don’t care if you actively disbelieve in God or simply withhold judgment. What I am saying is that you’re being inaccurate when you say that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief. Some people use the term that way, but it is by no means the only definition, and it certainly is not the traditional definition of the term.

I have pointed this distinction out to you before, yet you continue misrepresent my statement by declaring “Who are you to say what I believe or don’t believe?!??!?!” I’m not surprised that you persist in using this tactic, but I am severely disappointed.

[Icerigger]

Some years ago I read Andrew Greeley who stated it was Catholic dogma to believe in hell but you did not necessarily have to believe any humans were in it, God in his infinite mercy and all that. Is this correct? Does the CC claim it knows with certainty that any humans are in hell?

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Yes. I think Christians look down on non-Christians. Everything in their cult tells them they are better than non-believers, after all.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@JThunder

My correction was supported by encyclopedias of philosophy and a wide range of dictionaries. Your retort simply amounts to saying “You’re wrong!”

And I did NOT say that “atheists must believe X.” I don’t care if you actively disbelieve in God or simply withhold judgment. What I am saying is that you’re being inaccurate when you say that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief. Some people use the term that way, but it is by no means the only definition, and it certainly is not the traditional definition of the term.

I have pointed this distinction out to you before, yet you continue misrepresent my statement by declaring “Who are you to say what I believe or don’t believe?!??!?!” I’m not surprised that you persist in using this tactic, but I am severely disappointed.

Belief (or disbelief) doesn’t enter into it, for atheists. There isn’t anything to believe or not believe in. It’s not that I don’t “believe” in King Kong. I don’t “disbelieve” in Harry Potter.