Come out of the closet Americans

[Joe Guy]

Whether or not you can call it a Christmas concert depends on what is being presented. If they are singing Christmas carols in front of a Nativity Scene on Christmas Eve it just might be a Christmas concert.

[Econoline]

In my own experience, it seems like much of the objection to all the overt Christianity of the "holiday season" comes from Jews, but as I said that's just my own experience. Probably much of that (for Jews and other non-Christians) stems from the sheer length--approaching two months now!--of the "season" and the omnipresence of the carols in virtually every retail establishment. I'd imagine a 1-day holiday (or 7 days, or 8 days--or even 12 days, without all the damn poultry ) would be a lot easier for all to stomach.

And a simple statement of "I'm not a Christian" (or "I'm Jewish" or "I'm a Muslim" or "I'm a Wiccan" or "I'm an atheist") *SHOULD* be easy to make, easy to understand, and easy for Christians to accept. Right now it isn't.

[wesw]

oh my. I would really like to jump in here, but its late and my mouse is squirrely at the moment. it would really frustrate me to get halfway thru such an important post and not be able to finish it.

I ll get back to you tho.

wes

[BoSoxGal]

In my own experience, it seems like much of the objection to all the overt Christianity of the "holiday season" comes from Jews, but as I said that's just my own experience. Probably much of that (for Jews and other non-Christians) stems from the sheer length--approaching two months now!--of the "season" and the omnipresence of the carols in virtually every retail establishment. I'd imagine a 1-day holiday (or 7 days, or 8 days--or even 12 days, without all the damn poultry ) would be a lot easier for all to stomach.

And a simple statement of "I'm not a Christian" (or "I'm Jewish" or "I'm a Muslim" or "I'm a Wiccan" or "I'm an atheist") *SHOULD* be easy to make, easy to understand, and easy for Christians to accept. Right now it isn't.

What he said.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Crap. I accept it. So who doesn't? Christians do (or should) believe that most people will refuse to believe and go to Hell. What's the problem?

[Gob]

Christians do (or should) believe that most people will refuse to believe and go to Hell.

Lovely Christian sentiment that, "believe or go to hell".

[Crackpot]

Care to expand on that? Or are you just venting your emotional baggage?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Which one of us CP? Gob: no more so than to declare that people who choose to walk off high cliffs are going to go splat. (And don't bother with a wing-suit video or its ilk... you know what I mean). Christ said it... not the wing-suit part... he was more of a water sports guy

[Econoline]

Meade (and CP): I can't speak for Gob, but I've got my own emotional baggage so I'll give it a go...

(1) Believing in something without any empirical evidence isn't something one simply chooses whether or not to do, not like how I can choose to go shopping this afternoon, or like how I can choose to post this reply in this thread. One can choose to say one believes, one can choose to pretend to believe, one can even choose to obey some version of the 10 commandments, or 613 commandments, or 369 commandments--but belief itself is not simply a matter of volition.

(2) Hell is (by your definition) a form of punishment--eternal punishment. To say that someone deserves punishment, let alone eternal punishment, for what is essentially an involuntary thoughtcrime strikes me (and many others) as a cruel and mean-spirited statement.

(3) That I will go splat if I walk off a cliff is not something I have to accept on faith: I can find accounts by reliable observers of this happening; we could probably even find videos on the web of people going splat; if I really wanted to test the hypothesis I could even try it myself and go splat myself. (That wouldn't do me any good unless I somehow lived to tell the tale, but I could post a video of it happening to prove it to others.) Or I could toss various objects like watermelons, puppies, and Tea Party members off a cliff and observe what happens. Get back to me when you come up with a similar method of proving the existence of hell. (And as you yourself note, the going splat part is not inevitable anyway: if I think things through I can float down on a parachute or soar in a hang-glider or a wing-suit, instead of going splat. That's what we homo sapiens do, because we're, well, sapient. [I'd definitely give the puppy a parachute.])

[Big RR]

but belief itself is not simply a matter of volition.

I presume you mean believing in a supernatural or higher power or being, and I'm not sure why you say that; what else is required to believe anything other than volition? Certainly, some things offered for your belief will not make sense to you, but then I would think you would choose to refrain from believing those things; belief does requires some sort of a leap of faith, but I see that as volitional as well.

Now if you argue that all/many things are predestined, including whether one [will] believe or not (as the Calvanists and, to a slightly lesser extent, the Jansenists teach), you may well be right that belief is not a choice; but if you accept predestination, then you must accept that some superior power/being ordained these things, which make the protestations that you do not believe moot.

Certainly choosing to believe does not result in a path as easy as choosing to go to the store (more often it's kind of like choosing to climb a daunting mountain), but I personally can't see it as anything other than a choice.

[Lord Jim]

Believing in something without any empirical evidence isn't something one simply chooses whether or not to do,

So your belief that there is no afterlife, even though you cannot prove that belief empirically, is not something you have chosen to believe?

belief does requires some sort of a leap of faith

Indeed it does; and whether you care to acknowledge it or not, you're engaging in one.

[BoSoxGal]

Christians are far more intolerant than Atheists - point proven in this thread.

[Crackpot]

Sad thing is I don't think she's being ironic.

[Joe Guy]

I had to think about this for a while. And I'm still thinking. That's the rattling sound you might be hearing in the distance. I'm not sure I understand what Econoline is saying here -

Believing in something without any empirical evidence isn't something one simply chooses whether or not to do,

Is Econoline saying that to believe in something, God for example, is not a choice someone makes?

Then there is this -

So your belief that there is no afterlife, even though you cannot prove that belief empirically, is not something you have chosen to believe?

It seems to me that believing there is no afterlife is simply accepting what is obvious. There is no faith involved. Especially after you've seen someone die. No afterlife there. Nothing is functioning. The body will be rotting soon.

So then a group of people come along and say they believe (or have faith) that there is an afterlife. In fact, they say, there's a process involved where you have to qualify for heaven or hell status. There are those who have a limbo sentence because they don't qualify for heaven or hell. Probably includes illegal aliens... And then of course there is purgatory where the people aren't all that bad but they did some evil stuff and have to serve some time in minor league hell before getting in line for heaven. Then of course, the lifelong do gooders go straight to heaven and do not pass purgatory.

Then Econoline wrote this -

belief does requires some sort of a leap of faith

So believing in something without empirical evidence is not a choice a person makes but it requires a leap of faith?

Isn't having faith a choice someone makes?

followed by LJ with this -

Indeed it does; and whether you care to acknowledge it or not, you're engaging in one.

Is Lord Jim saying that declaring that you don't believe in an afterlife is a leap of faith?

If that's what he means, I disagree. Atheism is not accepting a claim some other people have made. It's an acceptance of the idea that people are born, live a while and die and then it's all over.

Accepting that the dead are actually functioning in an afterlife is a choice and leap of faith.

Believing that dead people continue to be dead isn't a leap at all.

Someone 'splain to me where I'm wrong.

[Econoline]

Just to clear up one minor point:

belief does requires some sort of a leap of faith

And...

So your belief that there is no afterlife, even though you cannot prove that belief empirically, is not something you have chosen to believe?

Joe handled this question pretty well:

Atheism is not accepting a claim some other people have made. It's an acceptance of the idea that people are born, live a while and die and then it's all over.

Accepting that the dead are actually functioning in an afterlife is a choice and leap of faith.

Believing that dead people continue to be dead isn't a leap at all.

[wesw]

kind of depends how you view everlasting life. seeing as how parables and metaphors were a favorite way of teaching for jesus, and the bible in general, everlasting life could be viewed as saying that the good and kind people that helped one another would be the ones to survive, and through their children they would have everlasting life. even the long buried ancestors of these survivors would live on thru their descendants.

he who has ears let him hear...?

[wesw]

no matter what anyone believes, I would encourage everyone to read the bible just for the wisdom inside. its surprising how much of what people say Christianity is or requires is not in the bible at all. I did not see the above description anywhere, or see where suicide condemned one to hell, just the opposite really. judgement is frowned upon. hanging out with the sinners is encouraged, even necessary. I did not see evolution deemed as sacrilege. I did not see the world s age stated. god s concept of time is apparently not the same as ours.

I was also surprised that much everyday speech wisdom and law is from the bible as well.

[MajGenl.Meade]

its surprising how much of what people say Christianity is or requires is not in the bible at all. I did not see the above description anywhere, or see where suicide condemned one to hell, just the opposite really. judgement is frowned upon. hanging out with the sinners is encouraged, even necessary. I did not see evolution deemed as sacrilege. I did not see the world s age stated. god s concept of time is apparently not the same as ours.

1. agreed - it's most often atheists (and some kinds of church people too) who misrepresent what Christianity is or requires.
2. not sure what "the above description" referred to, since it was your own post that is "above" and that speculates on things that are definitely not in the Bible
3. suicide condemning one to hell is not in the Bible. It's mostly a Roman hangover. I suppose it is based on self-murder as a violation of the 6th commandment.
4. somehow I don't think that suicide is "just the opposite" of being condemned to hell - which would be "commended to heaven" perhaps?
5. judgement is not frowned upon; it is required
6. hanging out with sinners is inevitable since all are sinners, including me
7. evolution is not held by Christians to be "sacrilege". Presumably you refer to the unproven theory of origins (which is not at all the same thing).
8. well spotted - the age of the world is not stated
9. God's concept of everything is not the same as ours so you're on safe ground there.

Question for BSG.... if you will.... I've not read every post in this thread but of those I have read I don't see "intolerance" being expressed by anyone on either side of the belief divide. Could you elucidate?

[Joe Guy]

Just to clear up one minor point:

belief does requires some sort of a leap of faith

Sorry, Econoline. I had a leap of faith in my memory....

[wesw]

hey joe. I guess I ll address things as you numbered them...

2) the above post referred to yours. I m not big on semantics, but is was above my post, just not right above.

3) I was referring to where it says that crazy people aren t going to be condemned to hell. if I remember correctly, they are considered innocent of evil intent like children.

5) I m talking about where it says, judge not lest ye be judged, and the judgement is the lords job.

7)I saw nothing in the bible that said it was sacrilege, no matter what other Christians hold. no I m talking about who s to say adam and eve weren t chimplike, and that the forbidden fruit was not the flesh of another animal they killed? who s knows what god looked like or if we look exactly like him, of if our appearance has changed since then?. what if his image has nothing to do with appearance? the bible is filled with parables and metaphors. jesus says that we all won t see them the same or correctly. he who has ears let him hear...

well, I don t have any chapter or verse quoted. I only read the thing once, and don t remember all that. I guess I ll look it all up if you d like me to support it. I ll have to get glasses or a bigger bible first tho. I think my arms have gotten shorter.
my memory isn t perfect, but I don t think I misrepresented anything. I hope I haven t offended you.

most of the stuff I wrote above was in the new testament, except for the adam and eve part.
the seeming hatred, holier than thou attitude, literal interpretation of every word and intolerance that some Christians practice and preach, I saw supported nowhere in the new testament. just the opposite in fact. kindness was big...

if you had told me three years ago that i would be a Christian i would have been certain you were wrong. i was sure i could never be that intellectually dishonest. i could never walk in somewhere and say i believed in something that i considered impossible.

i believed that Christians, or believers in any religion, were either weak and needed a crutch, or not very smart, or being dishonest just to reap some benefit from the church, or were kidding themselves in order to have the fellowship and do the good deeds many churches do, and believed that they were serving humanity and a little white lie was ok.

i did not understand, i was not as smart and learned as i believed i was.

perhaps i ll tell you about it one day, if you re interested. i would just recommend to everyone, athiests too, read the bible, with an emphasis on the new testament first, unless your really down, then job may give you hope. not some new, dumbed down bible either. the king james can be tough to understand, but there are good revisions, from the 50s i think.

there is knowledge and wisdom there. i can t believe i read thousands of books, but never read the bible until recently.