Really, Sigmund fucking Freud? Tell me more about my personal need for attention and anger. Is it because my mommy saw my pee-pee when I was 2?
I didn’t attack anybody for their religion. I don’t even know what his religion is. I corrected a misstatement of fact. If that displeases you, perhaps a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance is not for you.
Well I don’t desire to really debate the issue. With that said, yes Christianity states that Jesus paid the price of sin, but Christians are still responsible for not sinning, and we still suffer the effects and consequences of sin, especially if unrepentant.
The way I think about is that when you sin, you sin against a person and against God. The person part is easy, but how can God forgive you? If He just brushes it off, then He’s not just. Somebody has to pay the price, but what possible price can be paid to bridge the gap between humanity and God? I suppose some sort of system of micro-justice could have been arranged; I’m not an expert theologian. In any case, Jesus’ sacrifice makes it so repentance leads the way to salvation.
That minor witnessing probably rattled a hornets’ nest. Oh well.
You did not correct a misstatement of fact - you tossed out a hand grenade of bullshit into the thread.
See, that isn’t entirely correct.
No one is damned to an eternity of suffering at all, and even if you do accept Jesus, the obligation BEGINS there, it doesn’t stop there.
Self referential posting, eh?
No, you didn’t necessarily do that and I apologize if you read my post as if to accuse you. It was a general statement on my part for everyone, not targeting any particular person.
And yet, most Christian denominations teach that failure to accept Jesus/The Church leads to eternal damnation.
I’m curious as to which Christian sect you belong to if they teach “No one is damned to an eternity of suffering at all”.
Cite?
I’m Catholic.
I’m Catholic. The Church is clear that only those who meet certain criteria (e.g. accept Jesus/drink His blood/) will be saved (e.g. enjoy life after death), nowhere does it say that failing to do so will lead to eternal damnation. That’s quite a distinction.
The Presbyterians have no official stance on Hell.
I tend to think of “suffering” in this context, as strife. I think it’s a bad translation.
I was once told by an Eastern Religion prof who was familar with Pali, that the best translation of the 1st Noble Truth would be that “Life is unsatisfactory.”
I sure hope not, because I’ll probably be reborn as a pig and then Anthony Bourdain will eat me.
A noble reincarnation. You know what they say… Here today, bacon tomorrow.
(It’s a joke…People relax.)
Damn, missed that one. It should be…
“Hare today, bacon tomorrow.”
Coercion is a pretty strong word, don’t you think? I’m sure that all businesses do things that they would otherwise not do in order to please customers. I would rather lie on the beach and drink instead of going to work, but in order to make a decent living for my family I have to run my business in a responsible manner and a large part of that is responding to the wishes of my customers.
If that means I own a hotel and my customers would be turned away if I tell the Gideons that they can’t leave Bibles in the rooms (even if the customers don’t read the Bibles) then I better damn well let the Gideons leave them. That’s a good business decision; hardly coercion.
Whether “suffering”, “strife” or “unsatisfactory”, the message is similar - it is something worth escaping from, a state of being that is, in effect, not good. Hence the other three Noble Truths, which point out the cause of this situation and how to remedy it.
To my mind, ignoring for a second the mythological format, this isn’t all that different from some forms of Christianity - the message, at its most basic, is that you as an individual are in a bad state (even if you don’t realize it); and that the religion holds the answers as to how to remedy it - by following the way of either Jesus or the Buddha.
They differ of course in the origins of this unsatisfactory state - in Christianity it is the Fall of Man, derived from the Adam & Eve myth; to Buddhists, it is just the way the universe is structured. Buddhism is generally uninterested in origin myths.
I stated in my hypothesis that the vast majority of hotel guests wouldn’t notice or care that there was no bible in the room. So I’m assuming that there is no significant customer demand.
Wow, this must be that “first stone” I’ve read about. How thrilling it must be for you to be without sin.
Hey! I know what this little piece of snark means!
Is it because I’m a renowned scholar?
No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express Last night. 
The customer demand is not for Bibles in the hotel room. The customer demand would be for allowing the Gideons to place the Bibles in the hotel rooms.
In other words, there are a significant number of people who may never open a Bible, but have an overall favorable view or it, and would look down upon a hotel owner that didn’t allow the Gideons to place them…