Fear of Death

Originally posted by JS357
Generally, an atheist is a person who disbelieves in one more god than does his theist neighbor. So it strikes me as odd that anyone would find it hard to believe a particular god is nonexistent, as we all believe a vast multitude of gods are nonexistent. And because so many of those gods may be jealous gods, the theists and atheists alike should equally fear the consequences of their disbelief.

http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm

There was a time and a place at which it would have been considered bizarre to not believe in Zeus. I'm fairly confident that the Christianity thing will putter out in another millennium or two (and be replaced by something just as absurd, no doubt).

Originally posted by Soothfast
There was a time and a place at which it would have been considered bizarre to not believe in Zeus. I'm fairly confident that the Christianity thing will putter out in another millennium or two (and be replaced by something just as absurd, no doubt).

Belief in the God of the Holy Bible has lasted over 4,000 years, much
longer than belief in Zeus, and instead of "puttering out" it continues
to grow stronger.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I have no difficulty in disbelieving particular versions of god while being unable to wholly dismiss the idea of a god/creator. The standard christian version - sent his own son to die on the cross, only through him can you enter the kingdom etc. - is unacceptable to my mind because clearly there are non-christians who are better people than some chr more than that, I don't want any part of any kingdom of such a god. I would prefer damnation.

The standard christian version... is unacceptable to my mind because clearly there are non-christians who are better people than some christians.

Is there provision made, according to the Bible, for hypocritical Christians to go to heaven? If you have a scriptural basis for your claim, please provide it.

My understanding is that Christian salvation is based on faith, yes, but that faith, in order for it to be efficacious, must be authentic. Thus Christ's underscoring the importance of discerning which believers are false and which are true based on the content of their character: "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit... by their fruit you will recognize them" (Matt 7:18, 20). So what does Christ say, exactly, about what happens to hypocritical Christians? "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" (Matt 7:19).

If Christianity is unacceptable to you because hypocrites are allowed into heaven, I have good news for you: they aren't. Only those possessing the content of character consistent with their declaration of faith are acceptable in God's eyes: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Galatians 5:22).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The standard christian version... is unacceptable to my mind because clearly there are non-christians who are better people than some christians.

Is there provision made, according to the Bible, for hypocritical Christians to go to heaven? If you have a scriptural basis for your claim, please provide it.

My understanding is that Christian s ...[text shortened]... rance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Galatians 5:22).[/b]

No, christianity is unacceptable to me for a number of reasons, perhaps chief among which being the principle that only christians may receive the reward of heaven.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
No, christianity is unacceptable to me for a number of reasons, perhaps chief among which being the principle that only christians may receive the reward of heaven.

Your former complaint, that hypocritical Christians get in and well-behaved atheists do not, is, I would agree, logically inconsistent. But the principle that only Christians (authentic Christians) may receive the reward of heaven, is not.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
There are most certainly other paths to inner peace and contentment. Obviously none of us can say if any of these paths (yours included) lead to 'god' or 'life everlasting', but the apparent arrogance and disrespectful nature of John 14:6 seems to me like a taint against your religion.

Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.



this doesn't seem arrogant to me. Jesus was talking to and about Jews. We read that passage more universally. If one to read "more universally" (if that makes sense) then Christ is the mechanism by which all of humanity can be made whole. A universalist view would be that any avatar of Christ brings us into communion with God. Disclaimer: I'm not sure I am a universalist, but neither do i find Christs words arrogant or disrespectful.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The standard christian version... is unacceptable to my mind because clearly there are non-christians who are better people than some christians.

Is there provision made, according to the Bible, for hypocritical Christians to go to heaven? If you have a scriptural basis for your claim, please provide it.

My understanding is that Christian s rance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Galatians 5:22).[/b]

My understanding is that Christian salvation is based on faith, yes, but that faith, in order for it to be efficacious, must be authentic. Thus Christ's underscoring the importance of discerning which believers are false and which are true based on the content of their character: "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit... by their fruit you will recognize them" (Matt 7:18, 20). So what does Christ say, exactly, about what happens to hypocritical Christians? "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" (Matt 7:19).

Yes, Jesus did teach that there is a way to discern which "believers" are false and which are true. If "a good tree cannot bear bad fruit", then Christians who continue to commit sin are not "good tree[s]". Only Christians who no longer sin are "good tree[s]". To say that Christians can continue to sin and still be "good tree[s]" is illogical because then there would be no way to discern them from the "bad tree[s]" as both "bear bad fruit".

Have you finally come to this realization?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[quote]My understanding is that Christian salvation is based on faith, yes, but that faith, in order for it to be efficacious, must be authentic. Thus Christ's underscoring the importance of discerning which believers are false and which are true based on the content of their character: "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear goo e[s]" as both "bear bad fruit".

Have you finally come to this realization?

No, I haven't come to accept the false doctrine of sinless perfectionism. And neither am I interested in rehashing our old debate.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
No, I haven't come to accept the false doctrine of sinless perfectionism. And neither am I interested in rehashing our old debate.

So how can you discern "good tree[s]" from "bad tree[s]" if both "bear bad fruit"? Clearly you can't. Evidently you don't have an answer for this so you avoid the issue.

So much for your point about "...Christ's underscoring the importance of discerning which believers are false and which are true based on the content of their character" and the rest of your post which rests upon it.

Someday you're going to have to address the difficult issues. If you don't, then your assertions will continue to be little more than "thought terminating cliches". Perhaps fewer would find Christianity untenable, if Christians, like you, were willing and able to address the difficult issues. You shouldn't allow your "fear of death" to continue to keep you from doing so.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
So how can you discern "good tree[s]" from "bad tree[s]" if both "bear bad fruit"? Clearly you can't. Evidently you don't have an answer for this so you avoid the issue.

So much for your assertion about "...Christ's underscoring the importance of discerning which believers are false and which are true based on the content of their character" and the r ou shouldn't allow your "fear of death" to continue to keep you from doing so.

So how can you discern "good tree[s]" from "bad tree[s]" if both "bear bad fruit"? Clearly you can't. Evidently you don't have an answer for this so you avoid the issue.

I'd be more than willing to discuss this topic, just not with you.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]So how can you discern "good tree[s]" from "bad tree[s]" if both "bear bad fruit"? Clearly you can't. Evidently you don't have an answer for this so you avoid the issue.

I'd be more than willing to discuss this topic, just not with you.[/b]

If you had a tenable answer to the question, you would provide it.

That you don't speaks volumes.

What you probably don't realize is that your "fear of death" keeps you from even addressing it. Your unconscious mind provides rationalizations such as "I'd be more than willing to discuss this topic, just not with you" to avoid it. If it weren't that one, it'd just be another. Seems to speak to the topic of this thread - imagine that.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
So how can you discern "good tree[s]" from "bad tree[s]" if both "bear bad fruit"? Clearly you can't. Evidently you don't have an answer for this so you avoid the issue.

So much for your point about "...Christ's underscoring the importance of discerning which believers are false and which are true based on the content of their character" and the rest ou shouldn't allow your "fear of death" to continue to keep you from doing so.

====================================
So how can you discern "good tree[s]" from "bad tree[s]" if both "bear bad fruit"? Clearly you can't. Evidently you don't have an answer for this so you avoid the issue.

So much for your point about "...Christ's underscoring the importance of discerning which believers are false and which are true based on the content of their character" and the rest of your post which rests upon it.
=======================================

The passage you are harping on is not really about discerning true Christians from false Christians. It is about discerning false prophets from true prophets.

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so every good tree produces good fruit, but the corrupt tree produces bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire. So then, by their fruits you will recognize them." (Matt. 7:13-20)

What is being differentiated are false prophets from true prophets. Strictly speaking a Christian could also be a false prophet. Sure, a truly regenerated and redeemed Christian could be back slidden and carnal to the extent that he is behaving as a false prophet. We shall know them by their fruits.

==========================
Someday you're going to have to address the difficult issues. If you don't, then your assertions will continue to be little more than "thought terminating cliches". Perhaps fewer would find Christianity untenable, if Christians, like you, were willing and able to address the difficult issues. You shouldn't allow your "fear of death" to continue to keep you from doing so.
=========================================

Many of the "difficult issues" have been addressed. In the above passage your difficulty lies in taking a teaching concerning true and false prophets and forcing it to be about true and false Christians.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I have no difficulty in disbelieving particular versions of god while being unable to wholly dismiss the idea of a god/creator. The standard christian version - sent his own son to die on the cross, only through him can you enter the kingdom etc. - is unacceptable to my mind because clearly there are non-christians who are better people than some chr ...[text shortened]... more than that, I don't want any part of any kingdom of such a god. I would prefer damnation.

I notice that I am losing interest in the question of the existence of a god/creator. You mention a particular characterization of a god/creator and your reason why it is unacceptable to you; a reason that boils down to a moral objection. I agree with that moral objection. To my mind it is like we are a team of writers trying to come up with a morally and otherwise credible character for a play. Whether there is a something out there that matches the character, does not interest me at present, but we can still examine whether a particular characterization makes sense from moral and other perspectives.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you had a tenable answer to the question, you would provide it.

That you don't speaks volumes.

What you probably don't realize is that your "fear of death" keeps you from even addressing it. Your unconscious mind provides rationalizations such as "I'd be more than willing to discuss this topic, just not with you" to avoid it. If it weren't that one, it'd just be another. Seems to speak to the topic of this thread - imagine that.

Is it so hard to imagine that someone would rather not debate with you in particular? After all, antagonistic ad hominem conjecture is your forum M. O.—as evidenced by your last few posts.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Your former complaint, that hypocritical Christians get in and well-behaved atheists do not, is, I would agree, logically inconsistent. But the principle that only Christians (authentic Christians) may receive the reward of heaven, is not.

But it may be a tautology that only authentic Christians get the reward, as if someone gets the reward, they must have, by that fact have been an AC. The same could be said for authentic ducks. If it is not a tautology, it is a "no true Scotsman" argument: If X does not get the reward, he must not have been a true AC. So it being logically consistent is not supportive of its truth or even its possibility of truth.