Is conversion good or bad?

[Xar]

The intriguing thing is that in many ways, Av, you just defined what "faith" is... the bridge that leads from the "God could be" to the "God is"

[Avatar]

Perhaps. Not for me though. "God could be" is easy. Very easy. Anything could be. The moon could be made of cheese. But it's not.

Nah, I'm perfectly happy being faithless. I feel no lack, no void other than the one in which we circle on this beautiful ball of rock, and no need for anything more. I am, simply, sufficient unto myself.

I live my life according to what I believe, feel or reason is the best way, and that is enough for me. If there does happen to be a god, (which, as I've mentioned maybe I find rather unlikely), and it "rejects" me on lack of faith, well, then its not the sort of god I'd be much interested in being united with anyway.

But you know, there are some times when I think it would be nice to have an entity of some sort in charge of afterlife. And that is when it comes to the question of justice. I'd like to think that the people who cause pain and suffering get some just desserts at some point.

But again, I find it unlikely.

We are here and this is now and that's pretty much all there is to it.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Of course, I agree with all you just said, Av.

But you know, there are some times when I think it would be nice to have an entity of some sort in charge of afterlife. And that is when it comes to the question of justice. I'd like to think that the people who cause pain and suffering get some just desserts at some point.

But again, I find it unlikely.

From Neverness:

Why should man seek justice in a universe which is manifestly unjust? Are we so insignificant and vain that we cannot look upon the raw, naked face of randomness without praying it will smile upon us merely because we have been righteous and good?

But I always find myself getting involved in these types of conversations, and buying another book like C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity and Francis S. Collins' The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, both of which I bought last week. First of all, if there is any creator/god, I want to know about it, whether its one I would like or not. Second, I think it would be cool if there was, so I'm always hoping to be convinced. I mean, I'm perfectly fine with the idea that there's nothing other than the physical universe and its matter, energy, natural laws, etc. It's a bigger place than anything we could imagine, and there will never be an end to its awe-inspiring wonders. But I'm a fan of fantasy, and things like other realities and different orders of beings is cool stuff! (Although I would like there to be some type of father figure out there, watching and guiding us, I'm quite convinced that's not the case, so that idea is no longer part of my motivation.)

Lewis, unfortunately, let me down right out of the starting gate. I haven't read enough of Collins yet. He was the head of the Human Genome Project, and is a person of strong Christian faith. He began by discussing Lewis, which is why I also bought that. He hasn't gotten much into genetics yet, so far discussing things that aren't evidence of God.

[Lord Mhoram]

Fist,

Heh, not to derail the thread, but why or how did Lewis let you down? I also consider myself an Agnostic, and I personally found all of Lewis's works that I read (including Mere, as well as his "Space Trilogy," and what I consider to be his masterpiece The Screwtape Letters) immensely enjoyable. Do you mean he has failed to convert you to Christianity?

[Fist and Faith]

*sigh* I have to find where I misplaced the damned book so I can quote it right! Between those two books, and Hunters of Dune, all going back and forth between my house and my gf's...

[Avatar]

From Neverness:

Why should man seek justice in a universe which is manifestly unjust? Are we so insignificant and vain that we cannot look upon the raw, naked face of randomness without praying it will smile upon us merely because we have been righteous and good?

Man, I love that quote. And it's right. But for me, it's not so much expecting the universe to smile on me for being righteous as it is wishing that the universe would frown on the people who harm others unnecessarily.

That's where it gets me. That I might as well live a life of hedonistic cruelty, (which is both easier and more fun), as a life of...well...not righteousness perhaps, but you know what I mean.

Not that that changes anything. Like I said, I don't expect that there is any justice, and I don't live my life differently because of that expectation or lack of it. I just think it would be nice.

Personally though, I think I'd be a little disappointed if there was a god in the sense of a counsious and active entity. If there has to be one, I'd prefer Maliks disinterested (or at least non-interventionist) first cause. But if there is, say, a christian god, doesn't that all makes us toys? A child's plaything? (Haha, maybe we are...you never know. )

--A

[Xar]

The usual concept, of course, is that God chooses not to interfere in human affairs (or at least, not to interfere directly) because if He did, we would lose free will. The idea is that here on Earth, you exercise free will, wherever that leads you; after death, you are made to see what you have done. Christianity says that at that point, if you have committed evil, you'll be punished - paying for the free will you misused so to speak - and if you have done good, you will be rewarded. It's like a child who is given some money and told to go buy groceries. If the child spends the money on candies and stuff for himself, he'll be punished when he gets home, even though he may have had a great time before getting back home; if he buys groceries as asked, he may be rewarded when he gets back home.

I already discussed my concept of the afterlife's "punishment"; in my case, it'd be akin to the child buying candies, getting home, being forgiven by his mother because she loves him, and the child realizing he has done a "bad thing" and feeling guilty, thus punishing himself.

[Avatar]

See, I'm not even sure I would like that. That's not exactly what I would call justice.

Perhaps "karmic retribution" would be a better term. But that onlly works if you're consious of it.

Haha, nah, there is no justice. What we do, we must do for our own sakes, and not for the sake of divine reward or retribution.

Otherwise it diminishes the value of the good I think.

--A

[Xar]

See, I'm not even sure I would like that. That's not exactly what I would call justice.

Perhaps "karmic retribution" would be a better term. But that onlly works if you're consious of it.

Haha, nah, there is no justice. What we do, we must do for our own sakes, and not for the sake of divine reward or retribution.

Otherwise it diminishes the value of the good I think.

Truth be told, as far as I know that's how it should be in Christianity as well - to do good deeds because you want to, not because you hope to "buy" Heaven for yourself, or because you're afraid of Hell. That's why I think that trying to entice people by telling them they'll go to Heaven if they do good and to Hell if they don't is self-defeating: you're basically telling them to purchase their place in Heaven, rather than letting them earn it, so to speak. It's a big difference, if you see what I mean.

But as for justice, Av, see, that's where I think our thoughts (well, my beliefs and your thoughts) diverge: yes, there is injustice in the world, and yes, very often innocent people suffer because of this injustice. But expecting divine justice to right all wrongs in the afterlife is... well, a human conception, I think. I mean, there are some actions that are so heinous that one would expect them to be punished for all eternity, true, but how many people would you truly say would deserve to be horribly punished for all eternity? See, it's a delicate thing to think about; what about, say, the soldier who dies in a trench during a war, having just killed four enemies but not having the chance (or even the desire) to ask for divine forgiveness? Should he go to Hell because he murdered four people? And what about the fact they would have killed him if he had not killed them? And what about the fact that maybe he was drafted without a choice?

Yes, some people we think would deserve eternal punishment: unrepentant psychopathic serial killers who delight in carnage, child molesters and the like; but the question then becomes - in your mind, would God (hypothetically speaking in your case, of course) be a loving God or a stern God?

As I said when I described my conception of Hell, I believe in a loving Deity, and a forgiving one; we were never made perfect, and many people end up committing dark deeds because of how they were raised, or because they simply didn't know any other way. I prefer to believe that the choice of Heaven or Hell is left to us - that upon death we can see our life as it has been, objectively, and we cannot block the sight of any "sins" we have committed; that we learn then that God loves us regardless of what we have done, and that He forgives us; and that upon learning this, there are:

Those who will let themselves accept God's forgiveness and acknowledge whatever evil they did in life;

Those who instead are either too horrified by their actions while living, and therefore withdraw, incapable of accepting that they could deserve Heaven;

And those who, reviewing their life, still either refuse to understand or refuse to admit their "sins", and are arrogant enough to claim they don't need God's forgiveness, thus withdrawing as far away from God as possible, preferring to remain in darkness for all eternity rather than admitting to themselves they may have done wrong.

Now, as I said before, this is my personal belief, and admittedly, in some places it does indeed clash a bit with Catholicism; but somehow it feels much more right than the notion of eternal damnation by decree.

This just made me think of something... I'll go post it in another thread

[Avatar]

Truth be told, as far as I know that's how it should be in Christianity as well...trying to entice people by telling them they'll go to Heaven if they do good and to Hell if they don't is self-defeating: you're basically telling them to purchase their place in Heaven, rather than letting them earn it, so to speak. It's a big difference, if you see what I mean.

Definitely. And it is a big difference. Not to mention one of my issues with the concept. It irks me when people say, "what's the harm in believing? If it's right, then you're ok, if its wrong, you haven't lost anything at all."

That's not what it's supposed to be like. (I guess for me its a matter of principle. )

But expecting divine justice to right all wrongs in the afterlife is... well, a human conception, I think.

It is indeed. Of course, I don't expect it, but I know what you mean.

...what about, say, the soldier who dies in a trench during a war, having just killed four enemies but not having the chance (or even the desire) to ask for divine forgiveness? Should he go to Hell because he murdered four people? And what about the fact they would have killed him if he had not killed them? And what about the fact that maybe he was drafted without a choice?

Well, if I was a believer, I wouldn't think that whether or not you had time to ask for forgiveness would matter. If you are innocent (of malicious evil for want of a better term), then god would know that and take it into account.

As I said when I described my conception of Hell, I believe in a loving Deity, and a forgiving one; we were never made perfect, and many people end up committing dark deeds because of how they were raised, or because they simply didn't know any other way.

See, I agree with that too. Which is why I think its so important to try and understand all the underlying motives of a persons action. (Except of course I think we should try and understand that here, rather than leave it up to a hypothetical supremem being to decide and take the burden off our hands.

Now, as I said before, this is my personal belief, and admittedly, in some places it does indeed clash a bit with Catholicism; but somehow it feels much more right than the notion of eternal damnation by decree.

Another thing I agree with you totally on. The whole idea of "damnation by decree" is repugnant to me.

I could live with damnation through your actions, but not because of what you believe. Which is why your version of christianity, (which is indeed at odds with the official version) is much more palatable to me. I just don't believe it.

--A

[spacemonkey]

I have great respect for the Jewish faith for the same reason. One of my friends converted to Judaism; she had to approach the congregation leaders about it; she had to take some pretty serious classes before she could do it; she had to ask and be refused a number of times before she was allowed to convert.

And no one screamed at her in public, or came knocking on her door.

I know I'm coming into what is probably a dead topic, but ASK AND DENIED?? What TRUE faith in any religion is going to deny anyone anything,especially conversion? I don't want to insult anyone here but that's nothing more than Man's own pigheaded notion of his own "private" club.Conversion lies between God and the individual.Not to offend you either Prebe,but as an atheist(as you proclaim to be) you're basically saying that your life and experiences are nothing,you live for nothing except yourself and when Death does strike you,it's over.I cannot accept that for myself.Maybe it works for you,It won't for me.I've had a number of experiences(not necessarily with God) that I cannot discount.I am a very scientific person,but my faith and my science walk hand in hand......

[variol son]

Well you've already insulted me, and I'm an agnostic. No big deal though.

As to why a rabbi might deny someone wanting to convert to Judaism, I think this quote from Menolly's link a few posts down from duchess' explains things rather well.

In general, Jews do not try to convert non-Jews to Judaism. In fact, according to halakhah (Jewish Law), rabbis are supposed to make three vigorous attempts to dissuade a person who wants to convert to Judaism.

As the discussion above explained, Jews have a lot of responsibilities that non-Jews do not have. To be considered a good and righteous person in the eyes of G-d, a non-Jew need only follow the seven Noahic commandments, whereas a Jew has to follow all 613 commandments given in the Torah. If the potential convert is not going to follow those extra rules, it's better for him or her to stay a gentile, and since we as Jews are all responsible for each other, it's better for us too if that person stayed a gentile. The rabbinically mandated attempt to dissuade a convert is intended to make sure that the prospective convert is serious and willing to take on all this extra responsibility.

[Avatar]

Good post VS.

The denial is not a de facto one, it's a traditional means of making sure that the person is sincere in their desire to convert.

They are required to demonstrate that desire even in the face of opposition.

As for atheism, nobody is asking you to accept it for yourself SpaceMonkey. What works for me does not have to work for you. That type of misconception is where religious intolerance springs from.

...but as an atheist(as you proclaim to be) you're basically saying that your life and experiences are nothing,you live for nothing except yourself and when Death does strike you,it's over.

Who says my (or Prebe's) life and experiences are for nothing? Or that I live only for myself? Obviously in part I live for myself, in part I live for family, those I may love, whatever. And my life and experiences are deeply meaningful to me. Just because they will only last for my lifetime does not make them any less so to me.

But yes, when Death strikes, I find it highly likely that it will all be over.

--A

[spacemonkey]

My comments weren't meant to offend,they were meant as a feeler to understand why an atheist or agnostic for that matter feels the way they do.I'm not here to convert anybody,NOR do I claim to be perfect,all high and mighty,holier than thou,etc.etc.. If my comments offend,here and now I will apologize to one and all,my thoughts were a liitle out there last night and thought I would ask,I didn't mean that life means nothing to either you,Av, or Prebe for that matter.I'm just trying to understand a diiferent point of view,SORRY!

[Avatar]

No worries, I certainly wasn't offended, nor did I think that you meant to offend anybody.

It's just that we try to be a little careful about how we phrase these sorts of things, because they're sometimes delicate subjects, that's all.

My point of view is simple...nothing leads me to believe that there is any sort of god. That we have or can expect any sort of existence beyond the one that we experience right now.

I see no evidence of it, nor do I have any sense that there is something greater than you or I that is an actual "being" of any sort.

Ideas, concepts, yes, they can be greater than us, at least, insofar as we believe them to be more important than any individual life. But there is nothing that makes them so, beyond our conviction.

Hmmm...I'm not sure where I'm going with this...maybe if you ask a few specific questions about my perspective I can explain a little better. I'm happy to try.

--A

[Cybrweez]

As for atheism, nobody is asking you to accept it for yourself SpaceMonkey. What works for me does not have to work for you. That type of misconception is where religious intolerance springs from.

Is that true Av? Why are you in this forum, trying to dissuade us religious folks of our myths?

[Avatar]

I'm not trying to dissuade anybody. We're all free to believe whatever we want.

Like SpaceMonkey though, I'm eternally curious as to why people believe what they do.

--A

[Prebe]

I'm eternally curious as to why people believe what they do.

So am I. However, the closer your questions go, the more insulted many people will feel, because they can't answer them outside of the religious dogma to which they adher. Hence, they will feel "preached to".

For myself I can say, that I believe religion in general to be a waste of energy that could be used better, and I generally do what I can to persuade people of just that. So I am certainly guilty of some kind of "dissuading".

Good answer to spacemonkey's question btw Avatar. I feel pretty much the same. And I did not feel offended either.

[spacemonkey]

Thanx,Prebe,Avatar, for your understanding,sometimes I lack the proper eloquence for really getting my thoughts across accurately.I'm a bit blunt,not always,but sometimes.But back to the topic at hand,NO, if I am asked about what I lay my faith in I will say so,BUT,ONLY when asked. And I hope who ever asks has a little time,mine's really weird,but it works for me...........................

[Avatar]

Is that a challenge?

There's a whole thread stickied up here called "What you believe in..."

--A