But Marge....

Homer said, "But Marge, what if we've chosen the wrong religion? Every time we go to church we're just making God madder!"

If a person listens to what the Catholic, Mormon, Jew, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh have to say and then signs up for the religion which sounded the best and it turns out to be NOT the religion that YOU subscribe to, do you think God will punish that person?

What I'm getting at is, lots of believers in this Forum talk about the TRUTH but there are so many alternatives, how can a person possibly know which one is TRUE? It is therefore a bit mean of those who say "only those thinking like me will be saved". Is God really making us play Russian roulette with only one empty barrel?
🙁🙁🙁🙁😀🙁

Originally posted by Mixo
Homer said, "But Marge, what if we've chosen the wrong religion? Every time we go to church we're just making God madder!"

If a person listens to what the Catholic, Mormon, Jew, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh have to say and then signs up for the religion which sounded the best and it turns out to be NOT the religion that YOU subscribe to, do you think God will puni ...[text shortened]... Is God really making us play Russian roulette with only one empty barrel?
🙁🙁🙁🙁😀🙁

But,it's the only game in town. 😕

Originally posted by Mixo
Homer said, "But Marge, what if we've chosen the wrong religion? Every time we go to church we're just making God madder!"

If a person listens to what the Catholic, Mormon, Jew, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh have to say and then signs up for the religion which sounded the best and it turns out to be NOT the religion that YOU subscribe to, do you think God will puni Is God really making us play Russian roulette with only one empty barrel?
🙁🙁🙁🙁😀🙁

i think if you attempt to worship him and acknowledge his existence he wont punish you or anything.
Edit: but if all those religions are wrong, maybe he doesnt want us to worship or anything, just do what we want to do

Originally posted by Mixo
Homer said, "But Marge, what if we've chosen the wrong religion? Every time we go to church we're just making God madder!"

If a person listens to what the Catholic, Mormon, Jew, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh have to say and then signs up for the religion which sounded the best and it turns out to be NOT the religion that YOU subscribe to, do you think God will puni ...[text shortened]... Is God really making us play Russian roulette with only one empty barrel?
🙁🙁🙁🙁😀🙁

I'm in favour of letting mutually dissenting extremists--each utterly convinced that mutually incompatible truths have been infallibly revealed to them--argue it out among themselves.

They can get back to me once they have achieved concordance.

Originally posted by Mixo
Homer said, "But Marge, what if we've chosen the wrong religion? Every time we go to church we're just making God madder!"

If a person listens to what the Catholic, Mormon, Jew, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh have to say and then signs up for the religion which sounded the best and it turns out to be NOT the religion that YOU subscribe to, do you think God will puni ...[text shortened]... Is God really making us play Russian roulette with only one empty barrel?
🙁🙁🙁🙁😀🙁

I suppose the reason the gospel of Christ seems so offensive to nonbelievers is the claim that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man come to the Father but by him. How dare he say such a thing? Unless, of coarse, he is God. So that is the crux of the matter. Is Christ the Son of God? If so listen to him. If not then decide who is God and then listen to him. If there is no God it is even better for you. You can make it up as you go and is based soley on your perspective of reality. Thus your personal moral code, no matter how flawed, can be incorporated into your belief system with minimal discomfort and/or resistance.

I suppose what we all want to hear is someone telling us that there is no right and wrong, there is no absolute truth, and all roads lead to the same path. That is unless we feel we have been wronged in some way. Then there is hell to pay. I think this perspective makes us feel as though we will never be held accountable for our perceived "wrong-doings" and that nothing we do can ever be judged as such. After all, who likes to be told their wrong. I certainly don't. However, we all know that there is truth out there lurking in the shadows. We have all tasted of its purity and splendor......that is until it steps on our toes. Then it becomes a scourge to us and becomes cast into the realm of relativity. Then truth becomes unknowable and a personal choice. At least, that has been my observation.

Originally posted by Mixo
[b]Homer said, "But Marge, what if we've chosen the wrong religion? Every time we go to church we're just making God madder!"

If a person listens to what the Catholic, Mormon, Jew, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh have to say and then signs up for the religion which sounded the best and it turns out to be NOT the religion that YOU subscribe to, do you think God will puni ...[text shortened]

People make they chooses of going to heaven or hell, God doesn't make that choose for you.

Originally posted by RBHILL
People make they chooses of going to heaven or hell, God doesn't make that choose for you.

Is that supposed to be " People make the choice of going to heaven or hell, god doesn't make that choice for you."?
I apologise if English is not your first language or something, but there is a difference between merely being badly spelled, and being unintelligible or having a completely different from intended meaning.

Originally posted by whodey
I suppose the reason the gospel of Christ seems so offensive to nonbelievers is the claim that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man come to the Father but by him. How dare he say such a thing? Unless, of coarse, he is God. So that is the crux of the matter. Is Christ the Son of God? If so listen to him. If not then decide who is G Then truth becomes unknowable and a personal choice. At least, that has been my observation.

I suppose what we all want to hear is someone telling us that there is no right and wrong, there is no absolute truth, and all roads lead to the same path.

I disagree entirely. I think most people want to be told, they want some “authority” to tell them what is “the Truth,” so they don’t have to grapple with the question themselves.

As bbarr once put it, with dripping sarcasm: “I want to have a purpose given to me, and a path laid out before me, so that I do not have to find a way to imbue my own life with meaning, or deal with the terror of being truly free...I want to be a child for eternity.”

I confess, that hit me between the eyes, and I recognized my own syndrome of seeking out that “authority” to finally tell me what “the Truth” is, and my resentment against those “authorities” willing to do so—though in fact, the resentment was not deserved: I walked into the sheep-pen on my own. It was my own existential “bad faith” in seeking to relinquish my own responsibility that was the root of the resentment.

Now, in fact, I think that existential responsibility is ultimately inescapable. After all, if you decide (for whatever reasons) to give the bible, or the church, or the guru, or a philosophical moral code, the authority to tell you what you must do or think—then you made that decision on your own authority, and you maintain that decision on your own authority. And you are responsible.

I am responsible for everything I think, feel, say or do. I am the one who decides. I appeal to no authority to relieve me of that responsibility as I bear it moment to moment. I am responsible for my own errors, and the consequences. I have no God or devil to blame, and if I blame someone else that means I am in bondage to them.

Do I think there is some kind of cosmic ledger of account, some supernatural being who will hold me accountable after I die? No. I hold myself accountable now. Why do I? Maybe it is as close as I know how to be free and maintain my self-integrity at the same time.

EDIT: First time you and I are at complete loggerheads? 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I suppose what we all want to hear is someone telling us that there is no right and wrong, there is no absolute truth, and all roads lead to the same path.

I disagree entirely. I think most people want to be told, they want some “authority” to tell them what is “the Truth,” so they don’t have to grapple with the question themselves.

As bbarr ...[text shortened]... lf-integrity at the same time.

EDIT: First time you and I are at complete loggerheads? 🙂[/b]

But would you agree that the reason most find the gospel of Christ so offensive, is that it is so exclusive? Christ says that he alone is the way, the truth and the life. At least, this is the vibe I get from many on these boards. Due to our sin nature, we often do not like to be told there is only one thing to do just as Adam and Eve did not like to be told there is only one fruit in which not to partake. You are correct in the fact that we have an innate nature that seeks a higher power and higher authority to submit to. Then we have a sin nature at odds with this nature that seeks its own will which often rises above that higher authority. Either way you are correct in the assumption that we alone are responsible for our actions which ever route we choose.

Originally posted by whodey
But would you agree that the reason most find the gospel of Christ so offensive, is that it is so exclusive? Christ says that he alone is the way, the truth and the life. At least, this is the vibe I get from many on these boards. Due to our sin nature, we often do not like to be told there is only one thing to do just as Adam and Eve did not like to be to ...[text shortened]... rect in the assumption that we alone are responsible for our actions which ever route we choose.

If christianity is offensive it's simply because it's not true, and not because of it's exclusivity. There are certainly no shortage of exclusive religions in the world.

Your contention that we have an "innate nature that seeks a higher power and higher authority to submit to", is rubbish. Many people may have this craven weakness, but there are plenty who do not. As I do not believe in the concept of sin, I find your postulated "sin nature" to be even more ludicrous. I get the impression that you think atheists are rebelling against a god, whom they know, deep in their hearts, to be true.

Originally posted by whodey
But would you agree that the reason most find the gospel of Christ so offensive, is that it is so exclusive? Christ says that he alone is the way, the truth and the life. At least, this is the vibe I get from many on these boards. Due to our sin nature, we often do not like to be told there is only one thing to do just as Adam and Eve did not like to be to ...[text shortened]... rect in the assumption that we alone are responsible for our actions which ever route we choose.

But would you agree that the reason most find the gospel of Christ so offensive, is that it is so exclusive?

You know, I have spent years in discussions about what the real “gospel of Christ” is—live, in-depth and in full color. 🙂 I will now let the various Christians, with differing understandings, argue about what the “true gospel of Christ is.” I’m sure you believe your understanding, based on your reading of the Bible, and your interpretations of “text” and “context,” is the correct one—perhaps you think it is so clearly the correct one that you find it difficult to understand how someone could disagree and still call themselves Christians, perhaps not. I will not again address that question (not because I’m angry or even frustrated; simply because it is not a question that I can muster more than idle interest about, and revisiting it, as I have here recently, takes too much time and energy from those things that I am more interested in).

With that said, don’t confuse disagreement with offense. Don’t confuse offense at how the message is delivered with offense at the content. Sometimes the message is delivered with an air of smugness and self-righteous judgmentalism, and a refusal to argue critically, that people find offensive. (I am not accusing you of any of that.)

You are correct in the fact that we have an innate nature that seeks a higher power and higher authority to submit to.

I would more likely assign such an “innate” tendency toward submission to such things as fright, anxiety, laziness, indoctrination, confusion, self-deception, despair or weariness... I have known all of those, and likely will again; I think most people have. I am not going to presume to know any one person’s reasons, nor do I presume that is some kind of exhaustive list.

The notion that it is somehow easier to live without such submission is simply a false one, as is the notion that a life lived without the discipline of such an external authority is necessarily an undisciplined life. Clarity, continual vigilance and self-criticism are essential—when fright or weariness or grief or despair undermine one’s ability to maintain that discipline, then you have to deal with the causes of those feelings. When you fall down, you pick yourself up.

_________________________________

(Note: none of this has to do with seeking out the kind of authority such as a medical doctor might have to diagnose illness, for example. That kind of authority is vested in her knowledge, based on her education, experience, etc. I would not elect to go to an ophthalmologist for a hernia, however. Nor do I relinquish my responsibility to weigh what the physician says, to ask questions, to seek a second or third opinion, however. I am unlikely to submit to the authority of a physician who reads the tarot cards to make a diagnosis...)

Originally posted by rwingett
If christianity is offensive it's simply because it's not true, and not because of it's exclusivity. There are certainly no shortage of exclusive religions in the world.

Your contention that we have an "innate nature that seeks a higher power and higher authority to submit to", is rubbish. Many people may have this craven weakness, but there are plenty k atheists are rebelling against a god, whom they know, deep in their hearts, to be true.

I suppose one could put to some theists the counter-question: “Do you find my rejection of the supernatural offensive because it is so exclusive (i.e., that it categorically excludes the whole basis for your religious beliefs)?”

Note: My rejection could probably be called “weak anti-supernaturalism;” I think the burden of proof is on the supernaturalist to show why that whole category ought to be admitted to any investigation of reality (and warn in advance of the old god-of-the-gaps problem).

EDIT: I was going to suggest that "craven weakness" might be a bit harsh--but in my case, in all self-honesty, I have to swallow that one...

Originally posted by rwingett
Many people may have this craven weakness, but there are plenty who do not.

What makes it a weakness? And what makes it craven?

Originally posted by vistesd
I suppose one could put to some theists the counter-question: “Do you find my rejection of the supernatural offensive because it is so exclusive (i.e., that it categorically excludes the whole basis for your religious beliefs)?”

Note: My rejection could probably be called “weak anti-supernaturalism;” I think the burden of proof is on the supernaturalis ...[text shortened]... ness" might be a bit harsh--but in my case, in all self-honesty, I have to swallow that one...

I suppose one could put to some theists the counter-question: “Do you find my rejection of the supernatural offensive because it is so exclusive (i.e., that it categorically excludes the whole basis for your religious beliefs)?”

I don't find it offensive. Incoherent, maybe -- depending on what you replace the supernatural with in your system.

I think the burden of proof is on the supernaturalist to show why that whole category ought to be admitted to any investigation of reality (and warn in advance of the old god-of-the-gaps problem).

I agree. But the naturalist who denies the supernatural is under a similar burden of proof to justify his a priori rejection.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I suppose one could put to some theists the counter-question: “Do you find my rejection of the supernatural offensive because it is so exclusive (i.e., that it categorically excludes the whole basis for your religious beliefs)?”

I don't find it offensive. Incoherent, maybe -- depending on what you replace the supernatural with in your syste ...[text shortened]... s the supernatural is under a similar burden of proof to justify his a priori rejection.

Why is the 'naturalist' as you put it under a similar burden of proof? If the naturalist can explain most phenomena by natural means (and by explain here I mean 'can explain and has evidence to support (and importantly no evidence to contradict)) and has a reasonable expectation of explaining what remains be natural means, given that there was a point before something that has been explained wasn't, then isn't rejecting the supernatural the 'natural' choice. Doesn’t the burden of proof lie with the people claiming the existence of the supernatural to prove it exists?