The God Fuse

[CovenantJr]

Malik, I believe that you have a very jaundiced and misinformed opinion/view of Christianity. In no way, shape, or form is this life a punishment for anything.

Isn't life on earth a punishment for seeking knowledge of things we weren't meant to know, or something along those lines?

Put simply, by your logic, nothing we do matters anyway because we came from void and we return to void after 80 years or so. That's pretty pointless and hopeless.

Yes, it is pretty pointless and hopeless. But I think that can be addressed (again) by Murrin's comment: "Do you ascribe to a particular belief because you think it is true, or because it's more comforting?" If you (that's a hypothetical 'you', not you specifically, Cail) count yourself a Christian solely because it's less depressing than the idea that your life begins and ends with nothing, isn't that a somewhat false and contrived 'belief'?

[rusmeister]

Malik, I believe that you have a very jaundiced and misinformed opinion/view of Christianity. In no way, shape, or form is this life a punishment for anything.

Put simply, by your logic, nothing we do matters anyway because we came from void and we return to void after 80 years or so. That's pretty pointless and hopeless.

Thank you, Cail!
(Where's the 'rep' button here?)

Atheist logic cannot explain is why we, finding ourselves in this world with a foreknowledge of our own death, object to it - why we feel that things should be different, that death is not truly right or natural - in a word, why we feel that there is something wrong with the world.

It also cannot explain our thirst for the meaning of our lives. Saying that there IS no meaning does not explain away our desire for it. It's like telling a man dying deep in the Sahara desert that there is no such thing as water, just because he can't happen to obtain it. The fact that he desires water is a clear sign that water DOES exist. We all desire meaning (even the poor suckers sent to die at Stalingrad had to be told to do it for something), therefore, meaning exists. Therefore, this universe is not random. Therefore Hawkins, although intelligent and sincere, is wrong.

[rusmeister]

Malik, I believe that you have a very jaundiced and misinformed opinion/view of Christianity. In no way, shape, or form is this life a punishment for anything.

Isn't life on earth a punishment for seeking knowledge of things we weren't meant to know, or something along those lines?

Put simply, by your logic, nothing we do matters anyway because we came from void and we return to void after 80 years or so. That's pretty pointless and hopeless.

Yes, it is pretty pointless and hopeless. But I think that can be addressed (again) by Murrin's comment: "Do you ascribe to a particular belief because you think it is true, or because it's more comforting?" If you (that's a hypothetical 'you', not you specifically, Cail) count yourself a Christian solely because it's less depressing than the idea that your life begins and ends with nothing, isn't that a somewhat false and contrived 'belief'?

Your point that we should believe something because it is true is quite correct. That is why THAT is the question that should be put (for folk like you, anyway ).
But to respond to your concern about desiring a belief that comforts, I would respond with the words of Puddleglum, from "The Silver Chair" (The Chronicles of Narnia, by CS Lewis):

"One word, Ma'am. One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things -- trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

[Cybrweez]

malik, get your quotes right.

[Zarathustra]

Malik, I believe that you have a very jaundiced and misinformed opinion/view of Christianity. In no way, shape, or form is this life a punishment for anything.

Put simply, by your logic, nothing we do matters anyway because we came from void and we return to void after 80 years or so. That's pretty pointless and hopeless.

While, like CovJr, I think Murrin's point applies here (roughly, "truth isn't determined by how pleasant it is"), I'm not hopeless at all. I don't think hope depends on my personal immortality. Again, bringing the Chronicles back into this, Foamfollower said that hope derives from service. Not personal immortality. I tend to agree with that. I provide for my children, and in this small role, I help the species survive into the future. I participate directly in this fragile "miracle" of life. That's a lot more reassuring on a universal scale than God tossing me a cosmic life-preserver at the End--the fact that I'm virtually insignificant, and yet I still get to alter this reality and pass my effects into the future.

And I DO think what we do matters tremendously. I think the idea that you can murder 1000 people, and then repent and still get into heaven, means that Christianity can be interpreted as "nothing we do matters anyway," as long as we repent and convert to the correct belief-system. It's a way to forget about our sins and pretend that they've been "washed away" by the Blood of the Lamb. The idea that some guy getting nailed on a cross 2000 years ago can erase your guilt for molesting your children, for instance, means that "nothing we do matters." It's a way to diminish our own actions; particularly those we feel guilty about.

As for the first point, the entire story of being kicked out of the Garden of Eden, whether you read that literally or figuratively, means that our life "outside the Garden" is a punishment for original sin. As rusmeister said, Christians think there's something wrong with the world.

Atheist logic cannot explain is why we, finding ourselves in this world with a foreknowledge of our own death, object to it - why we feel that things should be different, that death is not truly right or natural - in a word, why we feel that there is something wrong with the world.

Rusmeister, you say this as if everyone thinks it. I don't think there's anything wrong with the world at all. I think some parts of it suck. But that's a strictly personal opinion. I think atheists accept the parts of the world that suck (like death and disease), while Christians are in a kind of denial about those things . . . so they try to account for them in terms that both explain them away, and render them meaningless. If there's life after death, then death really isn't a big deal, right? It's not as scary. Well, that's a view which diminishes the importance and finality of death. You guys are proving my point. Rusmeister doesn't think death is "truly right or natural." And I think anyone who clings to a belief in the afterlife shares this sentiment. It's a form of denial for the most real fact of our life . . . the fact that we've got one chance, and this is it. Christianity, in this sense, is a denial of the truths of our existence, a denial which takes the form of a comforting mythology.

So atheists can account for this feeling: unwillingness to face the unattractive truth.

The reason this is bad, is that it turns the most real consequence of our existence --death--into something we can ignore if we perform the right rituals (Baptism, repentance), and if we believe the correct mythology. That is the worst form of inauthenticity, not being able to bravely face the most fundamental facts of your existence.

I really wish there is a heaven. I really do. But I'm not willing to condemn the entire universe as a place that has "something wrong with it" simply because I don't want to die. That's a bit selfish and myopic, isn't it? Really, it's the most arrogant thing I can think of: the idea that the rules of the natural world can't possibly be right, just because I can't face my own death.

Again, how is your non-existence before you were born any different from your non-existence after your death? If the former doesn't require us to believe the entire universe has "something wrong with it," then the latter shouldn't either.

[Cybrweez]

Its kinda funny I hear the idea that truth may not be pleasant. How often do I also hear "I could never believe in a God that does that"?

[CovenantJr]

Its kinda funny I hear the idea that truth may not be pleasant. How often do I also hear "I could never believe in a God that does that"?

I don't know about anyone else, but when I say that (as I do, from time to time) I'm being flippant and dismissive. I can't choose to believe in the existence of God (or any deity) any more than people who genuinely feel his presence can choose to believe God's a fiction. If I say something along the lines of "If there is a God, he's a twisted sadist" I'm just doing it to counter-annoy people who are annoying me, or to get a good universal laugh from a group of atheists. It's social posturing, not a genuine intellectual stance. Not a big or clever thing to do, but I'm not going to pretend I don't do it.

[Zarathustra]

Its kinda funny I hear the idea that truth may not be pleasant. How often do I also hear "I could never believe in a God that does that"?

If I could see some proof of God's existence, I'd believe it. I'm not trying to NOT believe it. That's why I'm agnostic rather than atheist. I take my agnosticism seriously. I seriously leave open the possibility of God's existence.

As for that particular interpretation of God--the one who punishes us eternally for having the wrong beliefs--I think that idea is logically inconsistent. The idea of a loving God which does this self-contradictory. However, that's not why I reject the idea. If the idea of such a self-contradictory God were proven true, I'd have to accept it (though that's different from liking it.) I simply reject the idea in the same way I reject all the other gods out there, Zeus and Apollo included: I haven't seen any evidence for them. You're an atheist, too, with regards to all those gods. Your list of gods you don't believe in is merely one fewer than my list. So perhaps my disbelief in this case is very much like yours in all those other cases.

[CovenantJr]

As for that particular interpretation of God--the one who punishes us eternally for having the wrong beliefs--I think that idea is logically inconsistent. The idea of a loving God which does this self-contradictory. However, that's not why I reject the idea. If the idea of such a self-contradictory God were proven true, I'd have to accept it (though that's different from liking it.) I simply reject the idea in the same way I reject all the other gods out there, Zeus and Apollo included: I haven't seen any evidence for them. You're an atheist, too, with regards to all those gods. Your list of gods you don't believe in is merely one fewer than my list. So perhaps my disbelief in this case is very much like yours in all those other cases.

Good argument, Malik, and well explained.

[rusmeister]

Its kinda funny I hear the idea that truth may not be pleasant. How often do I also hear "I could never believe in a God that does that"?

If I could see some proof of God's existence, I'd believe it. I'm not trying to NOT believe it. That's why I'm agnostic rather than atheist. I take my agnosticism seriously. I seriously leave open the possibility of God's existence.

As for that particular interpretation of God--the one who punishes us eternally for having the wrong beliefs--I think that idea is logically inconsistent. The idea of a loving God which does this self-contradictory. However, that's not why I reject the idea. If the idea of such a self-contradictory God were proven true, I'd have to accept it (though that's different from liking it.) I simply reject the idea in the same way I reject all the other gods out there, Zeus and Apollo included: I haven't seen any evidence for them. You're an atheist, too, with regards to all those gods. Your list of gods you don't believe in is merely one fewer than my list. So perhaps my disbelief in this case is very much like yours in all those other cases.

Malik, you clearly didn't read - or didn't get the point - of what I said earlier. Your presentation of Christian theology is a strawman - there are major denominations of Christianity that avowedly deny such claims - I already mentioned the Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican Churches - for those faiths, at least, your argument doesn't work. (And I'm sure that a number of significant Protestant denominations also don't buy into it. )
You'll have to find another one. (I'm coming from Orthodoxy, which most strongly objects to your presentation of Christianity)

You've simply been exposed to the more primitive ones that do, or equally likely, to people that understand the theology of their own faith poorly.

Your demand of proof is one that denies faith and trust. If you want a friend, rather than a robot, you need to offer faith and trust. It would be a poor relationship to God if we all worshipped Him because He was standing over us with a baseball bat. If it were proven, we wouldn't freely choose Him. We'd all be shaking in our boots too much - frozen into abject submission. Others have said this much better than I. If I find a reference, I'll pass it along.

A strawman argument is just that - self-congratulating yourself on defeating the straw man, when there is a real warrior standing nearby.

You've misunderstood what you did read of my arguments as well.

In regards to death, I am speaking of the strange fact that at funerals, every sane person, for some strange reason, experiences water leaks from their eyes at the funerals of their loved ones. For some mysterious reason, we treat death like a tragedy. We do not shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh well" when someone we love dies. We feel that death is wrong and that we want life to go on. We do not say, "This was right and proper and now he doesn't exist so let's move on, people!" If your explanation were true, we would all be saying, "Well, now it's time for me to disintegrate into nothingness. Goodbye, everybody!" as everybody waves handkerchiefs. But they can't wish you all the best, though, because there will be no more 'you'.

Again, the idea that doing the correct rituals (a legalistic understanding, like saying the right magic spells) and 'believing the correct things' is just plain wrong - strawman. It would be much easier to have you simply investigate into what Christians believe (I encourage Orthodoxy, because it is so opposite to what you object to) than to go back and forth in post after post after post when you don't even know what we really believe.

I'll just reiterate the words of Puddleglum, slightly edited this time:

"All you've been saying is quite right. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things -- trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So,... we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

[[Syl]]

I cry when I pull a nose hair. I don't think that speaks to the fundamental nature of the universe.

Yeah, I cried at my grandmother's service. Some of it for selfish reasons, some for the grief of my family, and even some at the beauty of it. She lived a full life, and for the pain of it to be extended unnecessarily...

Contrarily, I was angry at the burial. Some bishop (mormon) spoke, and everything he said about my grandmother was just off. Compare that to the warm words of all her friends and family at the service, and...

[Zarathustra]

It would be much easier to have you simply investigate into what Christians believe (I encourage Orthodoxy, because it is so opposite to what you object to) than to go back and forth in post after post after post when you don't even know what we really believe.

I was raised Christian. My parents were (and still are) quite fanatical. I know what Christians believe. For nearly 2 decades, I was forced to listen to them as they told me what to believe.

If you don't believe in original sin, inherited guilt, the necessity of Baptism/repentance/believing in God to get you into heaven, and eternal punishment in hell if you don't do those three things, then you're right: I don't know what you believe. However, those bare minimum concepts--as far as I can tell--are the core of Christian belief. And my criticisms have been aimed directly at those concepts. If that's not your understanding of Christianity, then feel free to explain your version. If I misunderstand your posts, feel free to correct me. I'm trying to play fair.

As for the issues proof vs faith . . . Why does belief itself have to be a test? Why does God require the issues of his existence to be a litmus test to see if you're worthy to get into heaven? How does it prove I'm a good person if I'm willing to believe in something without evidence? Is believing in things you can see and touch a sign of evil? Living a good life should be enough. If God revealed himself, it wouldn't take away my free will. When he spoke to Moses via the burning bush, Moses still had a choice whether or not to do what he said. And he still made mistakes along the way. If all the miracles God performed for Moses didn't undermine his freewill, then it wouldn't undermine the freewill for the rest of us, either.

[CovenantJr]

Well I guess God was a lot more demonstrative back when he flamboyantly parted the sea...

If I were to approach my agnosticism logically (which I don't, since I'm a Logic Agnostic as well), the lack of any discernible divine presence would definitely be a major issue. God made it pretty damn obvious to the Biblical figures that he was real and busily working away at his business. If, now, when enormous chunks of the human population are atheist or agnostic, he doesn't give even the simplest sign of his existence, he's either apathetic as hell or gone.

Having said that, I'd also argue that any deity whose motives and thoughts are comprehensible by mere humans is no deity at all - that is, trying to understand what, if anything, God is doing must be futile.

See why I'm agnostic? I don't feel God, but I feel something other than (current) science, and I can also argue both for and against God's existence.

[The Laughing Man]

maybe we just quit listening...

[The Dreaming]

Note first that I wasn't defending my own beliefs, I was defending Christianity. If you deny that there is any proof in God, I would consider you an Agnostic personally. I consider an Atheist as one actively believing in the non-existence of God. Since Non-Existence is a negative, and can’t logically be proven. (This is simple logic, negatives can't be directly proven). Since you can no more prove God's non-existence than a Christian can prove God's existence, what you have isn't a scientific proof, you have a belief structure. What I am saying is you are on similar logical ground.

I don't think to believe in some purpose in the founding of the universe is as silly as believing in Unicorns. After all, not all beliefs are equally valid. I think it's a lot less silly. Is it possible that I look at the natural world, see its elegance, and feel compelled to think of the divine?

It is certainly ridiculous for Christians to deny modern science, and the people who founded this country certainly weren't thinking along those lines. I am pretty sure I have stated earlier in this forum that I consider myself a deist, and I feel like there are a lot of Christians (Catholics especially) who hold a deistic viewpoint (even if they don't know that they do). Also, any theologian will tell you this world, this life IS important. After all, if it weren't (and I still didn't feel doubt and fear of death) I would certainly seek my own, if I knew salvation were to follow. (Hence the lord has set his cannon 'gainst self-slaughter I believe). It is the Catholic principle of Stewardship that always catches me. We can't count on God to make everything go well. Withdrawal from the world is not the answer (whatever a Buddhist tells you) it is our responsibility to make our own world as much unto paradise as we are able. The idea of good works as essential to salvation also points to a deistic viewpoint. In addition, a strict assertion of free will (as the C church stresses is essential) is a thorough refutation of the puppet master God in favor of the clockmaker God, which is the one I personally believe in. Indeed, with what we know about the natural world the Clockmaker variety is the only one that can be rationalized.

In essence, it is this life that is important. Very few intelligent Christians will claim to know anything about the afterlife save that a variable number (it isn't known whether its all, most, some, a few, or just saints) will be drawn to God in death. I know, I had priests available to ask these questions too, and it's amazing how impossible it is to stump a Priest. (One that knows how to answer a question with "I don't know" or "It's a mystery).

My point was that there is Zealotry on both sides of the fence; I am in firm opposition to Zealotry wherever it pops up. I personally am unsure as to whether knowledge is even possible (how could I be more sure, if it were? ) Atheists, who seem to throw this piece of information around quite a bit, need to remember this when it comes to their own beliefs too. When you deny the infallibility of the Pope, remember to deny the infallibility of Richard Dawkins.

In regards to existentialism... I can see it as bravery if I can see your behavior, otherwise it just seems like melancholy rumination. (I.E. The Wasteland) what it really comes down to is a simple logical maxim I keep in my brain most of the time. "The only way that I can lose is if there is a God, and I do not believe in him". After all, why hold onto a belief where you will never get the pleasure of saying, "I told you so!”

[CovenantJr]

"The only way that I can lose is if there is a God, and I do not believe in him". After all, why hold onto a belief where you will never get the pleasure of saying, "I told you so!”

While I agree in principle, on a more serious note I must reiterate that I can't choose to believe in God. I would happily believe in him, 'just in case', but I can't force myself to believe it. I could say I believe it, but in the back of my mind I'd be thinking "......nah, not really".

[I'm Murrin]

Ah, Pascal's wager. A pretty flawed way of looking at the issue.
Hal Duncan made a pretty good deconstruction of the wager in one of his "Halls of Pentheus" essays.

Atheism isn't a bad wager if we're dealing not just with X and Y but with a million different Xs and Ys, none of whom we have any more valid reason to believe in than we have for any other. The more gods they throw at you to choose from, the smaller the chance that this or that one just happens to be, in actual fact, the One True God. Their very idea of this god as a being of wisdom, justice and mercy is at odds, in fact, with the idea of faith being a prerequisite for salvation, the likelihood of each being true in inverse proportion to the likelihood of the other. Which is to say that a bet on faith not being a prerequisite for salvation is a bet that any being of true wisdom, justice and mercy would not damn an individual on the basis of a game of chance -- not when expecting them to win would be foolish, punishing their loss would be unjust, and extending that punishment throughout eternity would be merciless.

To wager one's soul on atheism, on doubt, is to wager that the game of faith is a mug's game, a spiritual Russian Roulette that no deity with a shred of decency would require us to engage in, to wager that any god who requires faith in such circumstances with such consequences is not worth the risk of having faith in.

If we're looking at this on the basis of pure self-interest, [Pascal]'s money is on the least sensible option. When one could stay out of the game entirely with atheism, hedge one's bet with polytheism, or bet on the type of Higher Power that doesn't ream you if you lose, why on earth would one opt for the crazy wildcard when this is most likely to mean you crash and burn, especially if the guaranteed cost in terms of empathy and ethics is extortionate? Surely there must be more to this whole God thing than self-interest?

Of course, that's what most believers would argue, I suspect -- that Pascal's Wager is not at all how God wants us to approach the question. We should not have faith that the Deus Irae exists just because it's in our base self-interest. We should not have faith that the Deus Irae exists just because it's the canny thing to do to keep our asses out of the hellfire. We should have faith that the Deus Irae exists not because it's the pragmatic thing to do but because it's the right thing to do. Forget the heavenly rewards; it's about spiritual improvement, being a better person. One might well suggest that Pascal's Wager has it entirely the wrong way about, that true faith exists despite one's self-interest, as a product of revelation or reason, as a commitment to a Sacred Truth.

(I'm not, by this response, assuming that you are unaware of the arguments against that 'simple logical maxim'; I just thought it worth mentioning anyway.)

[The Dreaming]

The final part of my last post was something of an appropriate joke. Perhaps it is cowardly when given two seemingly viable options to choose the most tasteful. But I fail to see how choosing existentialism will make me a better person than choosing to believe in something. There are some existentialists I admire, but it just isn't something I am capable of accepting. To me God isn't a bright light that I'm drawn too like a moth. It's more of a whisper, a faint allusion I read between the lines of the universe. There *is* an elegance to the shape of the universe, one that seemed to me like conclusive evidence for a design, at least until I heard the multiverse theory .

I also hardly think God is blight upon the minds of intelligent people. If the 20th century proved anything, it's that removing God isn't the answer. Existentialists committed some of the greatest atrocities in human history.

This thread has repeatedly reminded me of the South Park 2 parter, where Cartman gets frozen and ends up in the future. ("Science H. Logic! What an a**hole!") Atheism is hardly the ultimate answer to the problems of human existence. There is wisdom to be found in religion, wisdom that religious people frequently ignore, but it's still there.

To seek an answer to the questions, "What happens after we die" and "Why is there something rather than nothing" With a simple null set... It seems a bit hasty at this point. There is still some mystery left in the universe. It is a bit hasty to say that science completely disproves an immortal part and divine design.

To say that the Chronicles is a refutation of Christianity is a bit hasty too. It is certainly about choice, something that is at the root of all christian thought. I personally saw it as an assertion of an objective morality. (It didn't matter whether or not TCs actions have any real consequence. They still *matter*) Which is a very Christian principle. Reading is a very personal experience though, Joy is in the ears that hear after all.

[rusmeister]

"The only way that I can lose is if there is a God, and I do not believe in him". After all, why hold onto a belief where you will never get the pleasure of saying, "I told you so!”

While I agree in principle, on a more serious note I must reiterate that I can't choose to believe in God. I would happily believe in him, 'just in case', but I can't force myself to believe it. I could say I believe it, but in the back of my mind I'd be thinking "......nah, not really".

Yeah, I used to think that myself. (One of the reasons I converted to Orthodoxy less than 5 years ago.) Once I realized that that is EXACTLY what faith entails - making a conscious choice regardless of or in spite of the evidence, I realized that all I had to do was push the button. And I did. And all of my objections turned out to be barriers that I had created myself.

On the issue of proof vs faith (that Malik also brought up) there is a great anecdote making the rounds in several variations:

A guy named Jack was walking along a steep cliff one day, when he accidentally got too close to the edge and fell. On the way down he grabbed a branch, which temporarily stopped his fall. He looked down and to his horror saw that the canyon fell straight down for more than a thousand feet.
He couldn't hang onto the branch forever, and there was no way for him to climb up the steep wall of the cliff. Hoping that someone could hear him, Jack hollered for help.
"HELP! HELP! Is anyone up there? HELP!"
He yelled for a long time, but no one heard him. He was about to give up when he heard a voice.
"Jack, Jack. Can you hear me?"
"Yes, yes!" called Jack, relieved. "I can hear you. I'm down here!"
"I can see you, Jack. Are you all right?"
"Yes, but who are you, and where are you?
"I AM the Lord, Jack. I'm everywhere."
"The Lord? You mean, GOD?"
"That's Me."
"God, please help me! I promise if, You'll get me down from here, I'll stop sinning. I'll be a really good person. I'll serve You for the rest of my life."
"Easy on the promises, Jack. Let's get you off from there; then we can talk. Now--here's what I want you to do. Listen carefully."
"I'll do anything, Lord. Just tell me what to do."
"Okay. Let go of the branch."
"What?"
"I said, Let go of the branch. Just trust Me. Let go."
There was a long silence.
Finally Jack yelled, "HELP! HELP! IS ANYONE ELSE UP THERE?"

[rusmeister]

It would be much easier to have you simply investigate into what Christians believe (I encourage Orthodoxy, because it is so opposite to what you object to) than to go back and forth in post after post after post when you don't even know what we really believe.

I was raised Christian. My parents were (and still are) quite fanatical. I know what Christians believe. For nearly 2 decades, I was forced to listen to them as they told me what to believe.

If you don't believe in original sin, inherited guilt, the necessity of Baptism/repentance/believing in God to get you into heaven, and eternal punishment in hell if you don't do those three things, then you're right: I don't know what you believe. However, those bare minimum concepts--as far as I can tell--are the core of Christian belief. And my criticisms have been aimed directly at those concepts. If that's not your understanding of Christianity, then feel free to explain your version. If I misunderstand your posts, feel free to correct me. I'm trying to play fair.

Thanks for your patience! Or, in a more SRD style, "Courtesy is like a drink from a mountain spring!"

Let's see, in Orthodox Christianity (aka Eastern Orthodoxy) we don't have original sin in the RC understanding, or inherited guilt. We did inherit the consequences of Adam's sin, so we die (that was something we were not created to do - we are intended to be a hybrid of physical and spiritual being). We also have a natural tendency to turn towards self. But we're responsible for our own sins, not Adam's.

Yes, we must be baptized, repent of our sins, and accept that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, not just some nice teacher. It's not mechanical fulfilling of magical conditions, however, but genuine repentance - a turning away from sin, from self and selfishness, from 'what I want' and to follow the difficult path of Christ - take up our cross and follow Him. It involves a challenging life of discovering that we are not as good as we think we are, and that being truly good takes superhuman effort - that we can't really do it without God's help, and so the need for continuing repentance, as we fall and have to get up again and again. A lifetime of turning away from self and out towards others and towards God. (Edit: This concerns us, people who have heard the Gospel. There are untold millions of people who will be judged on 'the law written in their hearts' (Romans 2:15)

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

- who had no opportunity to hear the gospel, pagan, aborigine, maybe hillbilly who obviously can't be blamed for not getting baptized into the Church. And there are many other little details, but in no case is it an 'evil' God who judges like a lawyer in an American court room - that's why we talk about 'the devil's advocate'.)

As for eternal punishment, this is where the legalistic understanding you seem to have of the teaching departs from Orthodoxy. We are not universalist - we don't believe that everyone eventually WILL be saved, but we are not wrong to hope that that will be the case. Our Lord's words do indicate, however, that a person IS free to reject salvation (already obtained for us in Christ's death and Resurrection) and suffer eternally as a result - however, this is not the stereotypical western understanding of "Hah hah! You made the wrong choice! Now burn in hell, baby!" It is far more of a whole series of choices of a person turning away from God and choosing self again and again, and eventually making themselves unable to accept God's salvation. God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance. He IS a loving God, after all. But in the end, we either say to God, "Let Thy will be done", or He says to us, "Let thy will be done", and the latter is our undoing. A really really good fictional presentation compatible, in general, with Orthodox teaching can be found in C.S. Lewis's book "The Great Divorce". For more actual teaching, visit canonical sites like www.oca.org, and they have an e-mail address for questions that answers are not found to.

I think I posted links to more authoritative Orthodox info sources somewhere here - if you can't find them, just ask or pm!

I hope this makes clear that there is a major chunk of Christianity that does not accept the description you have (properly) railed against.