You Sad Pathetic Man...

[MajGenl.Meade]

So I am interested to know what caused Lord Jim and MajGenl. Meade and dales and anyone else to choose Christianity -- or whatever religious tradition anyone has chosen -- to choose that particular religious tradition. Why one would choose a religious tradition over no religious tradition, I get. (I think.) But why this religious tradition over that one or the other one? I am mystified.

Simple. People inherit the faith of their parents. Religious affiliation is usually an accident of birth.

What Sean said here and in his follow-up is more often than not correct, IMO. It seems clear that if one is born in a country that is heavily influenced by Islam, one is more likely to attend a mosque than a synagogue - unless one's parents happen to be Jewish in which case the point remains valid. OTOH to grow up in a Christian influenced country such as England Australia the U.S.A. (excl. New England and California), the "choice" is more likely to be Christianity and so on.

It seems correct that one also rebels most against whatever the 'norm' is - not much point rejecting Buddhism if you happen to live in Cleveland, OH. Rejecting Christianity in Afghanistan is also a poorly thought-out act of youthful rebellion. Hence one expects that Christianity (for example) is more likely to be rejected in so-called "Western" society than in Asia. Whilst all atheists are equal-opportunity deniers, the ones we know seem to be (relatively) unbothered by Shintoism or the occasional Jainist.

I believe that if one "chooses" (say) Christ vs. Buddha, then one has not really been enlightened and the "choice" may very well be (and I would believe, is) merely a function of location, convenience, habit and family as Sean suggests or one of those "I must have a spiritual path so which one is the most acceptable to me?" I did not "choose" Christ - it was the other way around (again as Sean indicated in his follow-up).

My mother is adamantly opposed to religion; my father was indifferent; none of my family (then) were believers. I was married in Islington Registry office to an outright pagan (first time; and she is a witch and I don't mean that as an insult; my current wife and I attended her 4th wedding which was weird), then at a Unitarian church to a non-believer (the second time and at the time). I sang in a UCC church choir with Lynn; was a deacon; and heard all the messages and in fact rejected what I heard - it just was wrong (as the UCC has a tendency to be).

But then I heard the truth - and I didn't like it - but was convicted that my liking or not liking was irrelevant. It was a message by Jay Carty based on: 2 Cor 10:5 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ". Granted, had I lived in Tokyo it can be argued that I probably wouldn't have heard Jay Carty or any message like that - but of course, viewed from where I am now, if God had me in His sights (as the faith teaches) then running to Tokyo or to Samara would not change a thing.

From a practical point of view Andrew, I do believe that a careful examination of the claims of different religious traditions (while not constituting absolute proof) gives Christianity an immense edge in answering why one would 'choose' one religion over another - or as Sean said (I think) the one death and resurrection vs. tons of them. As an example, I think that any belief system that declares (as some do) that all things are illusion is self-defeating in at least two ways. (A) if all is illusion then all is real and (2) if all is unreal then so is the belief that all is illusion and finally (iv) there is no rule (iv).

Meade

PS Andrew, my point about the notion that there is "comfort [in] believing that there is no after-life" was meant as a riposte to atheists who boast that. They reject after-life - they are happy there is none (in their belief). I took that from prior posts in this thread. I agree with LJ etc. as you mentioned. To me, there is no significance at all in life that merely ends (as all must when the earth dies) - it is an exercise in self-gratification which conveniently ignores all those who do not have the same sense of having "brought joy" into another life - ephemeral. Life becomes a merit badge pursuit for three score years and ten. Who is going to sing my selfish song? The answer is 'ME' so don't sing along. (PC3)

[Guinevere]

So I am interested to know what caused Lord Jim and MajGenl. Meade and dales and anyone else to choose Christianity -- or whatever religious tradition anyone has chosen -- to choose that particular religious tradition. Why one would choose a religious tradition over no religious tradition, I get. (I think.) But why this religious tradition over that one or the other one? I am mystified.

Simple. People inherit the faith of their parents. Religious affiliation is usually an accident of birth.

What Sean said here and in his follow-up is more often than not correct, IMO. It seems clear that if one is born in a country that is heavily influenced by Islam, one is more likely to attend a mosque than a synagogue - unless one's parents happen to be Jewish in which case the point remains valid. OTOH to grow up in a Christian influenced country such as England Australia the U.S.A. (excl. New England and California), the "choice" is more likely to be Christianity and so on.

Meade -- your comments about New England not having a Christian influence (is that because you presume liberalism is godless?) are rude, condescending, devisive, and in a nutshell just about everything I despise about certain so-called Christians. Oh and they also happen to be just plain wrong.

Since my sense was that there are plenty of Christians in Massachusetts and New England (you clearly haven't spent any time here) I googled "Christians per capita by state" and got this link:
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_christian.html

Top 10 Most Christian States in the U.S.A.
(Organizationally reported/affiliated members of Christian churches, 1990)

Rank State Percent Number
1 Utah 75.00% 1,097,000
2 Rhode Island 75.00 710,000
3 North Dakota 73.80 482,000
4 South Dakota 66.90 462,000
5 Minnesota 64.90 2,644,000
6 Wisconsin 64.40 3,029,000
7 Massachusetts 64.00 3,669,000
8 Nebraska 63.10 990,000
9 Iowa 60.80 1,890,000
10 Connecticut 60.80 1,890,000

Funny, it looks like three of the six New England states are in the top 10 of states with the highest per capita members of Christian churches.

And then there is this, more recent article, which looks at adherents (not members, which I would suggest is a truer measure): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/2 ... de=1024329

And once again, Massachusetts, we rotten liberal idealists, is in the top 10, followed by Rhode Island and Connecticut (in the top half). Ohio, of course, is nowhere to be seen on either list . . .

[Lord Jim]

I suspect the Gen'l isn't going to like that list, given which state finished first....

[Guinevere]

Not to mention Minnesota and Wisconsin are pretty liberal and Iowa, god forbid, also allows gay marriage like Massachusetts and Connecticut.

[Big RR]

Meade--while I'm pretty sure you'll disagree, it looks to me like you started out in a fairly liberal part of Christianity, and then embraced a more conservative view, much like the reformed jew embracing orthodoxy, or a more liberal moslem (possibly ishmaeli?) embracing a more conservative tradition. Yes, you grew up without a family religion, but, living in the US, you were surrounded by christianity all your life. Certainly, you embrace your "choice" as embracing the "truth" (or being "chosen"), but then that is fairly common (you know, the convert sings loudest in the pews). Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see, and you choice has seemed to serve you well in your life, but I can't see it as anything but a choice, influenced by what you were exposed to during your life.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Please Guin - chill out, for somebody's sake! That was supposed to be wrong - crossing out England (my own country), Australia (land of the gobless masses), and then excepting California (rubato and LJ's place) and New England (I wonder who I had in mind?) is clearly contrary to the history of each place. I'd have included France and Italy if I knew anyone there. I am stoopid enough to make untrue jests but not so dumb as to believe them.

All I listed have patently been influenced by Christianity and it should be (IMO) obvious that my remark was absurdist rather than seriously intended. This Rather than this . I do not now know and have never known who is a Christian and who is not. I never seriously argue that although I am prone to giving the church of Rome a few digs from time to time; mildly compared to the vituperation that comes from some (I repeat, some) self-described liberals.

OTOH I am happy to argue that X belief or tradition is contrary to Christ. For example, to LJ's point - while I may object that many of the beliefs of the Latter Day Saints are clearly contrary to the Bible, it cannot be doubted that Utah's present has been influenced by Christianity.

As to Ohio that was a mistake - I should have put that on the list - but in general I regret the humour as it obviously distracted from what was intended to be a well-meant and non-divisive post

Meade

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meade--while I'm pretty sure you'll disagree, it looks to me like you started out in a fairly liberal part of Christianity, and then embraced a more conservative view, much like the reformed jew embracing orthodoxy, or a more liberal moslem (possibly ishmaeli?) embracing a more conservative tradition. Yes, you grew up without a family religion, but, living in the US, you were surrounded by christianity all your life. Certainly, you embrace your "choice" as embracing the "truth" (or being "chosen"), but then that is fairly common (you know, the convert sings loudest in the pews). Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see, and you choice has seemed to serve you well in your life, but I can't see it as anything but a choice, influenced by what you were exposed to during your life.

Oh I might disagree somewhat. I started out as a trade union communist (Trotskyite) much to my parents' dismay, so it's fair to say that the movement has been toward the more conservative side. From 0-27 I grew up in England which at the time meant quite a considerable degree of Christianity in the air - compulsory Religious Ed in the schools until age 17 for example; can't be in the Wolf Cubs unless you belonged to a church (I quit rather than go). And from 27 onward I agree that the Christian ambience of the USA was all around. I thought it clear that I agreed with Sean as to the influence of family, friends and locale?

It is at the final sentence that I respectfully dissent. I do not "choose" to believe in gravity or radio waves or geometry either, as if there were some other thing I could choose to believe instead. They simply are the truth before I learned of them and after I'm dead. Of course one is influenced by knowledge. Edit to add: Acquiring knowledge and learning is regarded as a good thing, no?

The Bible clearly states that we contribute nothing to our salvation; that we love God because God first loved us; and that He chooses to reveal Himself (I do not choose to see Him). I suppose it could be argued that the choice is then to either accept the truth or reject it, just as it is with gravity or HIV, but I hesitate to appear convicted that the Bible is God's Word because so many get upset when I do.

Meade

[Crackpot]

Calling Unitarians liberal Christians is like calling communists liberal democrats. Sure there are some common themes but when you look deep down they are two completely different and often contradictory philosophies.

[Big RR]

Meade--Matthew 16:24: Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

that implies a choice to me (and although it is KJV, all other versions resemble this; I think the teachings of Jesus clearly imply that a choice must be made, Calvin notwithstanding.

Crackpot--I did not intend to call Unitarians Christian, although many are (and some are not). But, while Meade did say he was married in the Unitarian (church?), he never said he was Unitarian and I did not mean to imply that he was. But I do think the UCC (United Church of Christ) is clearly among the liberal Christian denomination; Meade said he sang in the choir there so I presume he attended services--maybe even was a member at one time. No doubt some more fundamental Christians would debate that the UCC is not Christian, much as some orthodox jews reject reformed Judaism; I am not about to enter that debate.

[Sue U]

There is a misconception in several posts that either fear of death/God or fear of damnation is the motivator for (let us say) Christian belief in an afterlife. There is also the misconception that current units of society (i.e. people) are born in some kind of moral vacuum which they inhabit until they get the idea that it's nice to be nice to others. They do this "independently" of any belief in God for they have not at all been influenced, nor have those around them or preceding them, nor has society, by x thousands of years of human development shaped by a belief in God.

"[A] belief in God" (presumably "one supreme God" -- and Christianity's idea of God in particular) is an extremely recent development in human history and not in the least a universal concept, let alone shared a belief; moreover, it is actively rejected by a number of major religious schools of thought (see various strains of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and folkloric religion like Shinto, not to mention Native American and Polynesian religious traditions).

The comfort of believing that there is no after-life must be buttressed by a belief that one's actions on earth have any meaning beyond the mere utility of those actions. To do that, it is necessary to close eyes, cross fingers and forget that any achievement which will be utterly obliterated (as both science and religion tell us is the fate of this earth) is no achievement at all.

So your view is that any good (or bad, for that matter) done in this world is ultimately meaningless and useless? Talk about "depressing and despair-ridden." Why bother with anything at all? The fact that all life on this planet is ultimately doomed -- whether through individual death, environmental despoliation or celestial collision -- is of absolutely no significance to me. With history as my guide, I fully expect that within a few hundred thousand years at most, humans as a species will have run their course, if they don't kill themselves off accidentally well before. But what of it? We have brothers and sisters here and now who are suffering, who have been victimized, who have been degraded and forgotten. Isn't it our human responsibility to alleviate that suffering and injustice? Isn't that what your God demands? Isn't it our duty to loose every yoke, to free the oppressed, to feed the hungry, to bring the poor into our own house, and to clothe the naked? Isn't it our task to do justice and to love mercy? I am satisfied that for myself there is no God, but there is godliness in such acts and in a community organized for these purposes. My faith and tradition teaches the primacy of tikkun olam -- repair of the world -- as our human purpose. After that, my eternal dirt-nap of oblivion is perfectly fine with me. Everything that lives must die; that's just math. There's nothing wrong with it.

I would argue that religions arose as a result of human reaching for understanding, of revelation and of necessity (of the same kind such as led to scientific advance that is).

I would agree; religion, at its best, helps deepen understanding of ourselves, the world, our relation to others and our "place" in the universe -- in much the same ways as do art, music, literature and the folklore from which it arose. And like art, music, literature and folklore, it is a fundamentally human creation.

And further that all reasoned concepts of "altruism" arose (and still arise now) not from animal instinct but from a knowledge that life on this earth is not the finality that a shallow view espouses. "Unselfishness" is an idea co-opted by atheists and agnostics from religious thought by the simple process of denying God as the first and the last element in it and then declaring that it is an original idea sprung full formed from the (almost) perfect human mind.

Whether altruism arises organically through evolution and instinct or as a product of reasoned thought may be a behavioral science question, but it has nothing to do with any "knowledge" -- as if any such knowledge could exist -- "that life on this earth is not the finality." Your claim is one of faith, not fact. I have equal faith in the finality of the grave. Believe what you want about it since neither of us will "know" anything at all until we get there. Until then I'll thank you not to condescend and denigrate my beliefs, as (I hope) I refrain from doing towards you.

It also smacks of the "I'm all right, Jack" mode of thought. As long as I have done something useful (helped that old lady, changed tort law forever, changed a light bulb) then death is just the best thing going. Never mind all those who have not done something useful - they die too but who cares? They made no contribution so screw 'em.

WTF are you talking about??????

It is interesting that an informed (true) Christian is a person who may have once been either a very kind but lost person or a very unkind but lost person but who has now changed their motivation from self aggrandizement to a desire to please God. An atheist is a person who vows never to change. I was one of those once. I find it so much easier these days to love other people because I know they are all loved by Him first and all have eternal life - and I don't know which ones will be with me and which ones will not. So all deserve from me the same mercy that God gave to me, and I did not deserve it and do not deserve it even now.

Meade

Really, your self- righteousness is more than a little grating.

[Guinevere]

Please Guin - chill out, for somebody's sake! That was supposed to be wrong - crossing out England (my own country), Australia (land of the gobless masses), and then excepting California (rubato and LJ's place) and New England (I wonder who I had in mind?) is clearly contrary to the history of each place. I'd have included France and Italy if I knew anyone there. I am stoopid enough to make untrue jests but not so dumb as to believe them.

All I listed have patently been influenced by Christianity and it should be (IMO) obvious that my remark was absurdist rather than seriously intended. This Rather than this . I do not now know and have never known who is a Christian and who is not. I never seriously argue that although I am prone to giving the church of Rome a few digs from time to time; mildly compared to the vituperation that comes from some (I repeat, some) self-described liberals.

OTOH I am happy to argue that X belief or tradition is contrary to Christ. For example, to LJ's point - while I may object that many of the beliefs of the Latter Day Saints are clearly contrary to the Bible, it cannot be doubted that Utah's present has been influenced by Christianity.

As to Ohio that was a mistake - I should have put that on the list - but in general I regret the humour as it obviously distracted from what was intended to be a well-meant and non-divisive post

Meade

1. I am chilled out, I've been on my yoga mat the last three days.
2. There was absolutely no humor, or indication of same, in your post.
3. You never seriously argue who (or what) is Christian and who (or what) isn't? You should check your posts, I think the SA sun might be getting to you (the "I'm happy to argue x or y is contrary to Christ" is pretty much the same thing, in substance, if not in form).
4. Despite all of the above, I'll take your word for it that you meant no particular slight to New England and/or liberals residing there (although I'm not really convinced).

[Econoline]

This belongs in this thread. Written a couple of years ago by Roger Ebert, who died last Thursday.

I do not fear death

I will pass away sooner than most people who read this, but that doesn't shake my sense of wonder and joy.I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear. I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state. I am grateful for the gifts of intelligence, love, wonder and laughter. You can’t say it wasn’t interesting. My lifetime’s memories are what I have brought home from the trip. I will require them for eternity no more than that little souvenir of the Eiffel Tower I brought home from Paris.

I don’t expect to die anytime soon. But it could happen this moment, while I am writing. I was talking the other day with Jim Toback, a friend of 35 years, and the conversation turned to our deaths, as it always does. “Ask someone how they feel about death,” he said, “and they’ll tell you everyone’s gonna die. Ask them, In the next 30 seconds? No, no, no, that’s not gonna happen. How about this afternoon? No. What you’re really asking them to admit is, Oh my God, I don’t really exist. I might be gone at any given second.”

Me too, but I hope not. I have plans. Still, illness led me resolutely toward the contemplation of death. That led me to the subject of evolution, that most consoling of all the sciences, and I became engulfed on my blog in unforeseen discussions about God, the afterlife, religion, theory of evolution, intelligent design, reincarnation, the nature of reality, what came before the big bang, what waits after the end, the nature of intelligence, the reality of the self, death, death, death.

Many readers have informed me that it is a tragic and dreary business to go into death without faith. I don’t feel that way. “Faith” is neutral. All depends on what is believed in. I have no desire to live forever. The concept frightens me. I am 69, have had cancer, will die sooner than most of those reading this. That is in the nature of things. In my plans for life after death, I say, again with Whitman:

I bequeath myself to the dirt to grow from the grass I love,

If you want me again look for me under your boot-soles.

And with Will, the brother in Saul Bellow’s “Herzog,” I say, “Look for me in the weather reports.”

Raised as a Roman Catholic, I internalized the social values of that faith and still hold most of them, even though its theology no longer persuades me. I have no quarrel with what anyone else subscribes to; everyone deals with these things in his own way, and I have no truths to impart. All I require of a religion is that it be tolerant of those who do not agree with it. I know a priest whose eyes twinkle when he says, “You go about God’s work in your way, and I’ll go about it in His.”

What I expect to happen is that my body will fail, my mind will cease to function and that will be that. My genes will not live on, because I have had no children. I am comforted by Richard Dawkins’ theory of memes. Those are mental units: thoughts, ideas, gestures, notions, songs, beliefs, rhymes, ideals, teachings, sayings, phrases, clichés that move from mind to mind as genes move from body to body. After a lifetime of writing, teaching, broadcasting and telling too many jokes, I will leave behind more memes than many. They will all also eventually die, but so it goes.

O’Rourke’s had a photograph of Brendan Behan on the wall, and under it this quotation, which I memorized:

I respect kindness in human beings first of all, and kindness to animals. I don’t respect the law; I have a total irreverence for anything connected with society except that which makes the roads safer, the beer stronger, the food cheaper and the old men and old women warmer in the winter and happier in the summer.

That does a pretty good job of summing it up. “Kindness” covers all of my political beliefs. No need to spell them out. I believe that if, at the end, according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier, and something to make ourselves a little happier, that is about the best we can do. To make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime starts. We must try to contribute joy to the world. That is true no matter what our problems, our health, our circumstances. We must try. I didn’t always know this and am happy I lived long enough to find it out.

One of these days I will encounter what Henry James called on his deathbed “the distinguished thing.” I will not be conscious of the moment of passing. In this life I have already been declared dead. It wasn’t so bad. After the first ruptured artery, the doctors thought I was finished. My wife, Chaz, said she sensed that I was still alive and was communicating to her that I wasn’t finished yet. She said our hearts were beating in unison, although my heartbeat couldn’t be discovered. She told the doctors I was alive, they did what doctors do, and here I am, alive.

Do I believe her? Absolutely. I believe her literally — not symbolically, figuratively or spiritually. I believe she was actually aware of my call and that she sensed my heartbeat. I believe she did it in the real, physical world I have described, the one that I share with my wristwatch. I see no reason why such communication could not take place. I’m not talking about telepathy, psychic phenomenon or a miracle. The only miracle is that she was there when it happened, as she was for many long days and nights. I’m talking about her standing there and knowing something. Haven’t many of us experienced that? Come on, haven’t you? What goes on happens at a level not accessible to scientists, theologians, mystics, physicists, philosophers or psychiatrists. It’s a human kind of a thing.

Someday I will no longer call out, and there will be no heartbeat. I will be dead. What happens then? From my point of view, nothing. Absolutely nothing. All the same, as I wrote to Monica Eng, whom I have known since she was six, “You’d better cry at my memorial service.” I correspond with a dear friend, the wise and gentle Australian director Paul Cox. Our subject sometimes turns to death. In 2010 he came very close to dying before receiving a liver transplant. In 1988 he made a documentary named “Vincent: The Life and Death of Vincent van Gogh.” Paul wrote me that in his Arles days, van Gogh called himself “a simple worshiper of the external Buddha.” Paul told me that in those days, Vincent wrote:

Looking at the stars always makes me dream, as simply as I dream over the black dots representing towns and villages on a map.

Why, I ask myself, shouldn’t the shining dots of the sky be as accessible as the black dots on the map of France?

Just as we take a train to get to Tarascon or Rouen, we take death to reach a star. We cannot get to a star while we are alive any more than we can take the train when we are dead. So to me it seems possible that cholera, tuberculosis and cancer are the celestial means of locomotion. Just as steamboats, buses and railways are the terrestrial means.

To die quietly of old age would be to go there on foot.

Roger Joseph Ebert (June 18, 1942 – April 4, 2013) Requiescat in pace.

[MajGenl.Meade]

1. I am chilled out, I've been on my yoga mat the last three days.
2. There was absolutely no humor, or indication of same, in your post.
3. You never seriously argue who (or what) is Christian and who (or what) isn't? You should check your posts, I think the SA sun might be getting to you (the "I'm happy to argue x or y is contrary to Christ" is pretty much the same thing, in substance, if not in form).
4. Despite all of the above, I'll take your word for it that you meant no particular slight to New England and/or liberals residing there (although I'm not really convinced).

As for #4, thank you - but surely you also see I meant no slight to England, Australia, California as well as NE? It did not occur to me that what was obviously a false statement (as you spotted) would be taken seriously. Sorry again. Is it a fact that all Christians in NE are liberals? I am surprised. They certainly are not in the other three places named.

#3 yes, I think I mispoke there; you have a point. I meant to indicate that I have no idea who is "saved" and who is "unsaved" (although certain unsaved persons might seem pretty clear - any leader of North Korea for example, but there's always hope). If a person declares that the Bible is not the Word of God, then I'd say that opinion does not conform to "classic Christianity" as I understand it to be and I regard that as a denial of Christ himself, since he thought it is. It seems logical to me that a person who denies Christ, denies Christianity. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses spring to mind - as a denomination - but that's not to say individuals within those sects may not be Christian or saved.

Individuals may be Christian (I would not be able to tell) but not attend denominations which express Christian beliefs (IMO). And I was a Unitarian - that is, attended Unitarian church religiously (that's a joke, see). I also was (Big RR) not only a UCC member but also a UCC deacon. In my own opinion, I was not a Christian when I attended either one. I am happy to argue what a Christian "should" or should not believe (since there clearly must be some criteria or the term is meaningless) and if people don't believe that, then I think it's self-defining is it not?

And Sue -

it has nothing to do with any "knowledge" -- as if any such knowledge could exist -- "that life on this earth is not the finality." Your claim is one of faith, not fact. I have equal faith in the finality of the grave. Believe what you want about it since neither of us will "know" anything at all until we get there. Until then I'll thank you not to condescend and denigrate my beliefs, as (I hope) I refrain from doing towards you.

. I was not aware of condescending to or denigrating your beliefs and yet are you not displaying a self-righteous condemnation of my own? Perhaps categorical statements are not always as friendly as they seem to be at first blush, from either side. One would need exhaustive knowledge of all things sufficient to declare the non-existence of any knowledge that life on this earth is not the finality. God of course has that - and has declared that it is known.

My paragraph that you identify as self-righteousness (oddly it seems to me) expresses just the opposite - having been an atheist, rather judgemental toward religious folks, I've come to faith and learned that I'm actually a pretty crappy person in so many ways. Not an opinion; a fact revealed by knowldge. I'm sure I'll get a few huzzahs for that.

Meade

[RayThom]

To be, or not to be christian, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous believers,
Or for this atheist to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep...

... to sleep, to sleep... to sleep... Whoa, sorry my eyes were getting heavy reading all this stuff that changes absolutely nothing.

Oh, sweet Jesus, Lord and Savior, please make this the last post in the thread.

AMEN.

[Sean]

I've got a genuine question for you Meade... and of course anyone else who can answer it.

If one can only gain salvation through Christ, what of the people who have never heard of Christ and so never get a chance to follow him? Are there whole tribes or even whole nations of people who are condemned to eternal damnation having never had a chance of salvation?

Surely a fair and just God would give everybody the same opportunity to follow Christianity...

ETA: Tough shit Ray!

[Sue U]

And Sue -

it has nothing to do with any "knowledge" -- as if any such knowledge could exist -- "that life on this earth is not the finality." Your claim is one of faith, not fact. I have equal faith in the finality of the grave. Believe what you want about it since neither of us will "know" anything at all until we get there. Until then I'll thank you not to condescend and denigrate my beliefs, as (I hope) I refrain from doing towards you.

. I was not aware of condescending to or denigrating your beliefs and yet are you not displaying a self-righteous condemnation of my own? Perhaps categorical statements are not always as friendly as they seem to be at first blush, from either side.

I have never condemned your beliefs; what I condemn is your haughty characterization of your beliefs as fact. As I said, believe what you want about a God and an afterlife. The empirical evidence to date is that corpses tend to remain where they're left, absent some further physical interference. What happens to the "soul," if there is such a thing, is a matter of faith not susceptible to scientific proof. As for condescending and denigrating, whatever else would you call this:

[M]y point about the notion that there is "comfort [in] believing that there is no after-life" was meant as a riposte to atheists who boast that. They reject after-life - they are happy there is none (in their belief). I took that from prior posts in this thread. I agree with LJ etc. as you mentioned. To me, there is no significance at all in life that merely ends (as all must when the earth dies) - it is an exercise in self-gratification which conveniently ignores all those who do not have the same sense of having "brought joy" into another life - ephemeral. Life becomes a merit badge pursuit for three score years and ten. Who is going to sing my selfish song? The answer is 'ME' so don't sing along. (PC3)

I don't "boast" about any such thing; I merely stated my personal opinion of the matter. I have said several times in various threads that I have never understood the whole afterlife thing and cannot fathom why people find it so essential. And as I said in the post(s) on which you drew, for me, making the most of this life is all there is, and that's all I'd want. That doesn't make it "an exercise in self-gratification" or "a merit badge pursuit" or a "selfish song." On the contrary, it makes it an imperative to act consciously so as to leave the world better than you found it. I have asked you and others to explain what belief in an afterlife does for you/means to you/makes your life better and have yet to receive any answer that resonates with me. I don't begrudge you or anyone a belief in an afterlife; it's simply "not my cuppa."

My paragraph that you identify as self-righteousness (oddly it seems to me) expresses just the opposite - having been an atheist, rather judgemental toward religious folks, I've come to faith and learned that I'm actually a pretty crappy person in so many ways.

Then you may wish to read it again to ascertain the arrogant self-congratulation. I may be an atheist in your view, but I certainly appreciate the value of religion and I'm pretty sure I'm not any more judgmental of religious folks than I am of anyone else. Your broad-brush (mis)characterizations of what atheists think is unwarranted and offensive.

[Andrew D]

Well, General, I decline to accept the proposition that the ephemerality of a good renders that good insignificant. I decline to accept the proposition that "any achievement which will be utterly obliterated ... is no achievement at all."

If give water to a thirsty person, that act improves that person's life. Yes, it may be that that person will be thirsty again a moment later, and it may be that that person will eventually die of thirst, and it may be that that person's eternal situation will be unaffected by my having given that person water.

You appear to be saying that because my giving a thirsty person water may not prevent that person's later thirst, eventual death from thirst, or eternal damnation, my giving that thirsty person water is of no significance. In other words, that an act which is not of eternal significance is of no significance.

I disagree. That person's moment of relief from thirst matters. It matters in itself, regardless of what other things might also happen.

Is that not the teaching (or, at least, one of the teachings) of Matthew 25:31-46? "I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink". "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

Those who gave drink to a thirsty one of "the least of these my brethren" did not do so in the belief that doing so would somehow inure to their eternal benefit. On the contrary, when told that God "was thirsty, and ye gave [him] drink," they were mystified: "Lord ... when saw we thee ... thirsty, and gave thee drink?" And there is not even the tiniest hint that those who gave drink to a thirsty person did so in the belief that doing so would cause any other eternal effects either.

They gave water (or whatever) to the thirsty, simply because they had water to give, and the thirsty need water. As it turned out, their giving water to the thirsty had eternal consequences for them. But that is not why they did it. And that is not why God rewarded them for having done it.

Making the world a better place, even a minutely better place for even a single person for even a brief moment, matters. God says so. And in this case, he is right.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I've got a genuine question for you Meade... and of course anyone else who can answer it. If one can only gain salvation through Christ, what of the people who have never heard of Christ and so never get a chance to follow him? Are there whole tribes or even whole nations of people who are condemned to eternal damnation having never had a chance of salvation?

A hard-line predestinationist would presumably answer "Yes".

There is a different line of thought that Christ's second coming will not happen until every person in the world has indeed had the chance to follow him - that is the impetus for missions. This arises from the command to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:18-20)

Myself, I don't know. I suppose that God knows and, being good etc., responds appropriately. The question that seems more immediate to me is what happens to people who have heard of Christ, had the chance to follow him and rejected that chance?

Meade

[MajGenl.Meade]

Making the world a better place, even a minutely better place for even a single person for even a brief moment, matters. God says so. And in this case, he is right.

I agree Andrew. If there's a God, then that's the case (IMO). The act of giving water (as you describe it) is intrinsically good - not because I think so but because He does.

But if there is no God (IMO), then "making the world a better place" is as meaningless (IMO) as describing one thing as good and another as evil. Giving a person a drink of water is as meaningful (or meaningless) as hitting them with the cup (IMO).

Just as 'nature' is neither good nor bad, merely IS, so too would all other brute facts BE - unweighted as to goodness or badness (IMO). That is because absent God (IMO) the only standard of what is good or right or meaningful is what some human decides it to be - would not that be the case? And absent God, what some human decides to regard as good (or bad) is as valid or invalid as what some other human may decide. Surely that must be so?

There (surely) can be no true way in which another person's idea is "wrong" if all opinions are of equal value. If they are not of equal value, then what makes the idea of one person superior to that of another (other than the sheer quantity of like-minded people who can impose that idea)?

The argument is made that (e.g.) offering a thirsty person water is regarded in all/most societies as being somehow "right". Something one ought to do. But not everybody would do it. Are those who do not do so, actually wrong? If no, then giving or not giving the water is of equal worth. If yes, then it must be explained why those peoples' opinions are objectively incorrect. IMO

A quote from Sheldon seems somehow to fit (IMO) here:

"I'm sorry, Raj, but the rules of aerial warfare dictate that the fallen kite go to the victor,
and without rules the competition has no meaning. And without meaning, the following
would be an empty gesture: I have your kiii-te! I have your kiii-te!"

(smilie added to indicate there may be jocular material involved)

Meade

[Sean]

A hard-line predestinationist would presumably answer "Yes".

There is a different line of thought that Christ's second coming will not happen until every person in the world has indeed had the chance to follow him - that is the impetus for missions. This arises from the command to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:18-20)

That's not going to help all those who die between now and the second coming though...
I tend to disagree with missions as I disagree with all those who try and force their religion on others...

Myself, I don't know. I suppose that God knows and, being good etc., responds appropriately. The question that seems more immediate to me is what happens to people who have heard of Christ, had the chance to follow him and rejected that chance?

Meade

So you see a possibility that even those who are not Christians stand some chance of salvation?
Those who have been exposed to Christianity but chose a different path are indeed another story. I wonder what happens if they choose another God and live a pious and good life serving him/her?

Surely that's got to be worth some brownie points....