Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Do Mao and Stalin represent Atheism?

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
V

VaultZero4Me

Guest
I am an atheist who found this board the other day. My intention is to learn views differing than my own. I was reading a comment on "The Golden Compass" and found this quote on a website. I believe it was cited to come from a Focus On the Family article.

Baehr makes the important historical point that the logical consequences of Pullman's atheism can be found in the lives of the leading atheists of the 20th Century - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others. "These were men who killed millions of their own people and had no respect for justice or love. Ultimately, it is a road that only leads to meaninglessness, murder and social chaos."

My question is, do the other Christian members of this board share these sentiments? I am not trying to setup a debate. I just am interested in polling the group to see what the general consensus was.

I know many other non-believers who argue the oppsoite, that in history, christianity has equaled murder and pillaging. I do not share that view, as I believe that people act on their own accord. I think that this has been a fallacy to use as an argument for atheism, and promotes no actual discourse between the two communities. I was wondering if there were of like mind on the christian side.
 
Yes, I am in agreement with you on this. While it's fair to point out to those who say that religion is the cause of violence that atheism isn't exactly violence free, it's also unfair to say the type of violence that Stalin et. al. visited upon the world is a "logical consequence" of athiesm.

I'll add the caveat that I am unfamiliar with whomever Pullman might be. Perhaps he has a specific view of athiesm that would cause violence.

But, murder and violence isn't the norm for any of the athiests that I know. It is a norm for humans in general.

Probably, for the Christian the key word in the quote would be "Ultimately". Within the Christian world view, there are two ultimate ends for all of mankind: The end of eternal life with God, characterized by love, holiness and joy, and the end of eternal separation from God. An eternity without God, (from a Christian mindset) would be characterized by meaninglessness, chaos, and violence.
 
handy said:
Yes, I am in agreement with you on this. While it's fair to point out to those who say that religion is the cause of violence that atheism isn't exactly violence free, it's also unfair to say the type of violence that Stalin et. al. visited upon the world is a "logical consequence" of athiesm.

I'll add the caveat that I am unfamiliar with whomever Pullman might be. Perhaps he has a specific view of athiesm that would cause violence.

But, murder and violence isn't the norm for any of the athiests that I know. It is a norm for humans in general.

Probably, for the Christian the key word in the quote would be "Ultimately". Within the Christian world view, there are two ultimate ends for all of mankind: The end of eternal life with God, characterized by love, holiness and joy, and the end of eternal separation from God. An eternity without God, (from a Christian mindset) would be characterized by meaninglessness, chaos, and violence.

Thanks for the reply. Good to see a viewpoint in that regard.

I thought about that when I read it (if he meant it because of seperation from god), but then I reread it and in context, I believe he is speaking of atheism specifically leading to social chaos on earth. Pretty much inferring that atheists have no moral character. Otherwise, he would have qualified it to include all religions without the Abrahamic God or specifically meant in the afterlife.

FYI, Pullman is the author of "The Golden Compass" book, and the other books in the trilogy. Pullman is a humanist, but has seemed to convey an antitheist message lately (coincidentally around the same time the movie is coming out 8) ). I understand a reaction against him, but do not understand arguing that Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot are "leading atheists", rather than just cruel heartless murderers. Atheism had nothing to do with it. Power drunk had everything to do with it.
 
I also am in agreement with VaultZero4Me on this. It is unfair to characterize all atheists as being like Stalin or Mao, just as it is unfair to characterize all theists as being like Torquemada. One can be an ethical atheists, an unethical atheist, an ethical theist or an unethical theist. One also may have either a theistic or atheistic ethical framework that either is for freedom, life and peace, or for slavery, death and war. Indeed, atheism or theism per se have nothing to do with ethics, save only the difference on from where they believe ethics are derived. The real question is, for the theist, exactly what kind of God do you believe in? And for the atheist, exactly what is your view of human life and the value of that life?

God bless!
 
Yes, I am in agreement with you on this. While it's fair to point out to those who say that religion is the cause of violence that atheism isn't exactly violence free, it's also unfair to say the type of violence that Stalin et. al. visited upon the world is a "logical consequence" of athiesm.
I can agree with this. I can also understand why others may point fingers at religion. Religion under certain circumstances, leads people to believe and do blindly, following rules and regulations contrary to the ones God would have us follow.

No, atheism isn't a cause, or the cause for all that's wrong in the world; anarchy is! 8-) Actually, it's an inherent problem within man. I won't go as far as saying mankind is totally depraved; I believe some are more depraved and deceitful than others. Eventually "men" slip into the outer darkness and never quite experience that Light that is described in the very first verses of John's Gospel.

Reminds me of the lyrics from an old song by "War":

"You been slippin' into darkness, oh, oh, oh
Pretty soon you're gonna pay "
8-)
 
I don't think Mao and Stalin represent Atheism. I think they represent absolute power, and the human condition. Doesn't communism come from Marxism. Marxism had the goal in mind of a utopian society. To me the utopian society is a biblical reality when Christ is king. Stalin was set up by the Lenin vanguard. Lenin brought the revolution in for Russia. He knew the political landscape and used it to his advantage. I think Mao and Stalin are, in the likes of Hitler. There is never any way of telling what a dictator may do. Jesus sets up rulers and knocks them down. At least he is in control. I am also of the opinion that true atheism doesn't exist anyway. Perhaps agnosticism is a better statement.
 
believer_in_one said:
I don't think Mao and Stalin represent Atheism. I think they represent absolute power, and the human condition. Doesn't communism come from Marxism. Marxism had the goal in mind of a utopian society. To me the utopian society is a biblical reality when Christ is king. Stalin was set up by the Lenin vanguard. Lenin brought the revolution in for Russia. He knew the political landscape and used it to his advantage. I think Mao and Stalin are, in the likes of Hitler. There is never any way of telling what a dictator may do. Jesus sets up rulers and knocks them down. At least he is in control. I am also of the opinion that true atheism doesn't exist anyway. Perhaps agnosticism is a better statement.

True atheism is not making an assertion of faith of a deity.

Agnostic is saying that I don't really care either way.

Keen difference.

Just because an idea is unfalsifiable, does not mean you cannot actually disbelieve in the idea. I can never prove my case, but I still believe that no deities exist. Do you consider people who believe that Leprechauns do not exist are leprechaun atheists, or leprechaun agnostic?

Do not get the impression that I am comparing your faith to believing in a Leprechaun, it was purely an example of not believing in an unfalsifiable idea.

The Abrahamic faiths have a long line of internal evidence for the believers. Atheists just find that it is incredible, hence the disbelief.
 
hmm well let us look at the word ATHEISM. Atheism means: "The belief there is no God."
To me this requires more faith then anything. If something came from nothing, to me that is the most illogical thought possible. Oh and by the way about Leprechauns. I am a Leprechaun atheist because of the agnosticism of them. The Leprechaun is classified as mythology and folklore. There is no archeological proof. The Bible on the other hand does. The comparison is a flaky one at best. I did enjoy the laugh though!

-B_I_O
 
believer_in_one said:
hmm well let us look at the word ATHEISM. Atheism means: "The belief there is no God."
To me this requires more faith then anything. If something came from nothing, to me that is the most illogical thought possible. Oh and by the way about Leprechauns. I am a Leprechaun atheist because of the agnosticism of them. The Leprechaun is classified as mythology and folklore. There is no archeological proof. The Bible on the other hand does. The comparison is a flaky one at best. I did enjoy the laugh though!

-B_I_O

There are two kinds of atheism: (1) positive atheism, that assets a positive disbelief in a deity or deities, and (2) negative atheism, that simply lacks a belief in a deity or deities. Technically, a rock (for example) would be a negative atheist--it has no mind or heart to believe or disbelieve. A positive atheist says that he or she actively disbelieves in the existence of any and all gods or godesses.

Also, Christians are technically positive atheists concerning all other Gods besides the God of the Bible. We either believe that these "gods" do not exist or that if they represents beings that actually exist, they exist as demons or other spiritual entities, not gods (and therefore they do not exist as "gods"--the definition of those beings is in error).

I don't think it requires much faith to disbelieve in, for example, the "gods" of ancient Greece.

As to agnosticism, it's similar to negative atheism but not identical. Most agnostics don't believe it's even possible to know definitively if there is a God or not--either the definition doesn't make sense to them, or by definition such a God is beyond all experience by finite human beings and even if we encountered him, we wouldn't necessarily recognize him as God. They would assert that a finite human would have no way of knowing when he or she encounters an infinite being, since we cannot perceive the infinite.

God bless!
 
Pullman's atheism can be found in the lives of the leading atheists of the 20th Century - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others.

I'm one who thinks that the philosopy of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are indeed a logical outworking from atheism. However, I certainly do not believe that all athiests are going to act out like those folks. Most atheist's way of life is not completely consistent with their philosophy. But that is a good thing. :)
 
believer_in_one said:
hmm well let us look at the word ATHEISM. Atheism means: "The belief there is no God."
To me this requires more faith then anything. If something came from nothing, to me that is the most illogical thought possible. Oh and by the way about Leprechauns. I am a Leprechaun atheist because of the agnosticism of them. The Leprechaun is classified as mythology and folklore. There is no archeological proof. The Bible on the other hand does. The comparison is a flaky one at best. I did enjoy the laugh though!

-B_I_O

Sorry, but you cannot use a dictionary to support your thesis here. It does not work like that. I can pop off some to you as well:

American Heritage: Atheism - 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

WordNet: Atheism - 2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

If you consider that atheists believe that there is 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt there are no deities, than I guess you can say that takes faith. You cannot falsify a god by nature of the definition of him. We supposedly live in two different realities.

But it is possible to not believe in something based on an overwhelming amount of lack of evidence. Hence my example. You cannot prove that there are no leprechauns. I could always tell you he is under that rock, and when you turned it over, I would say, oh, now he's under that one. Hence, you never prove me wrong.

I challenge you to show me that there is more evidence to prove the existence of God over a leprechaun. Sorry, archaeological evidence only shows that some of the events in the bible may have happened. None of the evidence supports the existence of God. I can cite literature to you that has factual events along with a story of a leprechaun. doesn't make the leprechaun more real.

I am not on here to debate the existence of God. I have no desire to de-convert anyone. This is a Christian website for Christians. That would be a little rude for me to do, and very arrogant to even want to do it. If someone has faith in God or gods, and are happy and not hurting anyone, why would I care?

I just do not like to see someone try to define a word in a manner that suites them, and then say that the word describes a non-existent group. That is rude and arrogant.
 
Vault, you said,

Just because an idea is unfalsifiable, does not mean you cannot actually disbelieve in the idea. I can never prove my case, but I still believe that no deities exist. Do you consider people who believe that Leprechauns do not exist are leprechaun atheists, or leprechaun agnostic?
You are correct; you can never prove your case, because we will all cease to exist in the end anyway if you are right. We (believers) do have a 50/50 chance of proving our case though. I know, not convincing enough, total lack of empirical evidence, but it "works" for us. ;-) We can sit here and rattle off verse after verse and we can't change anything in you.

All I can do at this point is stress that what we have between our Creator is a personal relationship instituted by Him, not us. 8-)
 
vic C. said:
Vault, you said,

Just because an idea is unfalsifiable, does not mean you cannot actually disbelieve in the idea. I can never prove my case, but I still believe that no deities exist. Do you consider people who believe that Leprechauns do not exist are leprechaun atheists, or leprechaun agnostic?
You are correct; you can never prove your case, because we will all cease to exist in the end anyway if you are right. We (believers) do have a 50/50 chance of proving our case though. I know, not convincing enough, total lack of empirical evidence, but it "works" for us. ;-) We can sit here and rattle off verse after verse and we can't change anything in you.

All I can do at this point is stress that what we have between our Creator is a personal relationship instituted by Him, not us. 8-)

If you stack the various religions that humans have created since the early days of creative wonder, you chances of being right (in the Christian God) become exceedingly small.

But, if faith works for you in a positive manner, than I agree, it is good for you.
 
If you stack the various religions that humans have created since the early days of creative wonder, you chances of being right (in the Christian God) become exceedingly small.

But, if faith works for you in a positive manner, than I agree, it is good for you.
I only know of one belief system where the Creator seeks out His creation. All other systems have man trying to seek out and please their god. He came to us! We didn't go to Him.

Besides, I'll take your supposed exceedingly small chance of me being wrong than your consequences if I'm right. Only a "fool" would refuse the hedge. In reality, my faith is beyond any hedging theology or theories, though I do tend to bring up Pascal from time to time. My faith is rooted in real personal relationship between myself and God, instituted by Him and has nothing to do with my imagination or creativity.

Can't explain it in a rational way? Neither can I. ;-)
 
VaultZero4Me said:
I am an atheist who found this board the other day. My intention is to learn views differing than my own. I was reading a comment on "The Golden Compass" and found this quote on a website. I believe it was cited to come from a Focus On the Family article.

Baehr makes the important historical point that the logical consequences of Pullman's atheism can be found in the lives of the leading atheists of the 20th Century - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others. "These were men who killed millions of their own people and had no respect for justice or love. Ultimately, it is a road that only leads to meaninglessness, murder and social chaos."

My question is, do the other Christian members of this board share these sentiments? I am not trying to setup a debate. I just am interested in polling the group to see what the general consensus was.

I know many other non-believers who argue the oppsoite, that in history, christianity has equaled murder and pillaging. I do not share that view, as I believe that people act on their own accord. I think that this has been a fallacy to use as an argument for atheism, and promotes no actual discourse between the two communities. I was wondering if there were of like mind on the christian side.
I do not share the sentiments of the person quoted. Focus on the Family is a right wing political organization which likes to say inflammatory things to fill its coffers from Christian "sheep". In my opinion they are being manipulated and fleeced.

This is not to say that FOTF does no good, but it is way out of its depth when it comes to politics and science. Their thinking is muddled because they are unable to separate the church and state.

I cringe whenever I hear them speak out on behalf of Christians. When they try to talk Christianity, but their politics gets in the way and when they talk politics their Christianity gets in the way.

If we were all judged by the comments of special interest groups who stand to benefit from fanning the flames of discord then we would be seen as narrow small minded bigots and we are not.

Christianity is not about judging others. That is God's job. Christianity is about showing love, compassion and forgiveness. We are told to shun the ways of the world and to not become worldly. FOTF and some vocal Christian leaders see no difference. They no longer want to save the world by preaching the gospel, but instead want to take over the political process and make it their own. They want to legislate the morals of non-Christians and try to shove it down their throats. Unfortunately it is a big turn off to non-Christians who resent being told how to live their lives.

This comment is typical of the tactics used by FOTF and other right wing groups. Instead of discussing real issues which would reveal their inadequacy they prefer to slander and sling mud, which just shows how Christianity can be reduced to the lowest common denominator when it seeks to play politics. In this case, instead of discussing their problem with the book, they try to associate it with communism and not just any communism, but communist despots. This writer is thrown in the same league as Pol Pot who annihilated millions in Cambodia. This way they do not really have to read the book or do any research, they can just make associations in the mind of the reader. This is just yellow journalism and cheapshots and not befitting of a Christian organization, if it is indeed one.

Their point is that if we start to think freely, i.e. not listen to them, then we are communists and deserve to be thrown in with the likes of those mentioned. They have one argument which they recycle over and over. Everything is a slippery slope of liberalism to them. They take something that they don't agree with and say that it will lead to blah, blah, blah, which is usually outrageous and stupid, but people buy it.

For example, they think that if we allow gays to marry our children are all going to become gay, as if it is a contagion or glamorous lifestyle that everyone is going to sign onto, ignoring all of the statistics that homosexuality has been stable time immemorial and that most people just are not attracted to people of the same sex. Logic has no place in their debates. They play on our emotions and try to get us not to think. Many right wing Christians criticize Catholics for having the pope do their thinking for them, but see nothing wrong with asking us to allow them to filter the world for us. It saves us the trouble of following issues and doing what God wants us to do (in their eyes) which is to make money, consume and go to church.

I read on this board postings talking about Islamic extremists, but we have Christian extremists who are every bit as much as nut cases as those we condemn. The only difference is that our nut cases know how to stir us up and get our money by saying things that appeal to us. They are wolves in sheep's clothing who know how to manipulate us to strengthen their organization and not the kingdom of God. We were warned about false prophets and false teachers who can quote scripture and are reminded that even the Devil can quote the Bible for his purposes. We forget that.

I am frustrated by a non-Christian, self-admitted atheist, posting this and asking if we are all like this. Not all communists are Stalins. He killed lots of communists who did not agree with him. Also not all despots are left wing. The right wing has its own share or dictators and lunatics. We forget that Hitler killed the socialists before he killed the Jews. We forget about Franco, Marcos, the Shah of Iran, and a host of others who were fascists. No not all Christians think alike politically. We are all over the political spectrum. You only hear about the noisy ones who want to raise money.

We need to not measure all Christians by the lunatic fringe and their self serving comments. We are told to emulate Christ and not each other. Man will always fall short of the standard. Christians are not perfect, just forgiven sinners. Jesus was a man of peace, love, compassion and forgiveness. He was perfect and he could have judged the adulteress when the others would stone her. Instead he said that whoever is without sin can cast the first stone. He waited and told her to go an sin no more. He offered grace and forgiveness when the others offered judgment and condemnation. That is the way we need to treat others.

Christians are repeatedly told to love one another and to pray for our enemies. We are also told that we should not judge lest we are judged. It is all about grace. If we cannot offer grace and forgiveness to others then how can we expect it from God.

It is not a popular thing to attack FOTF on a Christian board, but they have thrown their hat into the political ring and politics is all about power and control. Politics is dirty. It is of this world. We need to remember that. When we try to gain political control then we are exercising power and influence. We are trying to dominate others and force our will on them. this was not Jesus' way.

Judging by many postings that I have read, there aren't too many left wing Christians here. That does not mean that we do not exist. They are usually bullied into silence. This board is probably predominately American. I am not, so you can take comfort in that. I cannot be accused of being unAmerican because I am not one. Americans seem to be very susceptible to this accusation. When in doubt wave the flag.

I am an ardent Christian who just happens to care about others and believes that putting others' interest ahead of my own carries over into all aspects of my life, including politics. As the saying goes politics makes strange bedfellows. Sometimes that puts me in contact with people who do not see religion the same way that I do. We share a common interest in politics which is to reduce poverty and help the sick. Working together with atheists does not make me an atheist.

Some of the men you mentioned probably were atheists. It does not follow that all communists are despots or that all despots are atheists. Hitler was not an atheist. One thing that is true about all despots is that it is easier to violate human rights if you hide behind a cause whether it be communism or Christianity.

Blessings,
Dunamite
 
To Dunamite:

That was a very well thought out and constructive post. I just want to make clear that I did not post this to try and reinforce an opinion that Christians were intolerant. I do not automatically hold that position. Though, it is hard to fight that stereotype as when I have grown up in the southern US states, and that is the loudest voice you hear. It is funny how the extreme voice can speak louder to us than the moderate ones.

My attempt was to find a voice such as yours to hear a balanced viewpoint.

Christians are not the only ones that suffer from this effect. Militant atheism has set the tone for atheism as a whole as well, when the majority of atheist just want to be able to be integrated into mainstream society. Though I do not know your country, if it is European, it is highly likely to be much easier to live a life as an atheist without having to watch your words to not expose your position.

Although, I do not want to portray a view that I have never said a cross word about or made fun of religion in my life (early on I was pretty much anti-theist as a teen), I just am trying to unlearn those habits. In the US it is hard to not be anti-theist when you feel like religion has taken a greater part in your life than it should. I just know that being militant is probably one of the worse ways to evoke change, and the only thing that seperates you from some of the atheist-bashers at that point is only the belief/no-belief thing.

Anyway, all of that rambling was to say that I did not intend to try to set a tone for a forum to feed a beast consciously, and I think your posting is one of the more well balanced and grounded postings that I have read in a while (theist or non-theist site).

Also, want to plug a good site that I have been posting on lately that a mindset like you have might be interested in http://www.nonconforums.com.

It is a neutral ground in which theists and nontheists come together in conversation. It seems to create some good discussion when no one has the home team effect. Hope to see you there, or anyone reading this who wants to learn more about the other side.

Actually, the other day, I was in a debate with the theist members arguing a position on if the Bible supports the wife having to automatically submit to the will of the husband. Not in a sense that I was trying to discredit the Bible or anything, but I was holding the position that a couple could consider each other equals in authority while remaining true to scriptures.

FYI, it is a smaller group right now, so it is not one of the more active forums, hopefully that will change though. :)
 
I am Canadian. I live close to the border and have family on both sides of the border. Some of my family is very Republican, U.S. military brass. I have got into some very deep discussions. In addition I am a news junkie and a political scientist by training. I understand the essence of politics better than most and know that we can never solve the world's problems on our own. This is where my faith allows me to have hope. I am able to separate the two clearly in my mind. They are very much at odds. This is why I find it so hard to accept the idea of a theocracy. The church can only lose by getting involved in politics. Water and oil can never mix. Certainly once it is all mixed together it isn't drinkable. That's the way I feel about the separation of church and state.

I was an atheist until I was thirty. I am now in my mid-fifties. I was a radical at university and I found that I never had to give up my radicalism when I became a Christian. Now I try to be radically obedient to Jesus and his word. It is a challenge for me to stay focused and be moderate in my words even though I have a great deal of passion about Christ and the state of the world.

Your post gave me an opportunity to go on, so I am glad you posted it.

Atheists are good to talk with. They have at least considered the idea of God before denying his existence. This gives a basis for discussion, as long as both sides respect boundaries. Unfortunately, some of my fellow Christians have given many atheists reason to avoid them. This makes opening a dialog difficult. I will look into the website you posted when I have more time.

Blessings,
Dunamite
 
I only know of one belief system where the Creator seeks out His creation. All other systems have man trying to seek out and please their god. He came to us! We didn't go to Him.

Besides, I'll take your supposed exceedingly small chance of me being wrong than your consequences if I'm right. Only a "fool" would refuse the hedge. In reality, my faith is beyond any hedging theology or theories, though I do tend to bring up Pascal from time to time. My faith is rooted in real personal relationship between myself and God, instituted by Him and has nothing to do with my imagination or creativity.

Can't explain it in a rational way? Neither can I. ;-)

Ok.

i just met a guy who met a prophet who told him that she had a vision. In this vision, she learned that in reality there is a deity. This deity taught her that he is real, but he does not want to be known. In fact, life is a test. It is testing humanity. The deity wants to find out who can overcome their fears and use pure rational without any faith. Basically, the deity wants to know and find people who are able to be atheists and not believe in the possibility of a deity. In fact, all the religions were created by him to create a challenge.

When you die, your soul gets sent to a holding cell. When he is finished testing humanity, he will separate the souls into 3 categories:

1. People who lived horrible lives (theist and atheists included)
2. Theists
3. Atheists

Group 1 will be sent to an eternal place of torment. More horrible than any place ever imagined in any religion.
Group 2. will be sent to an eternal lake a fire
Group 3 will become deities, live in an unimaginable land full of pleasure, and will go on to create a universe in which to perform the same test.

Now, of course, I believe this is all hogwash because I am an atheist, but looks like Pascals wager looks a little different now ;)

Constructive, no. Fun thought experiment, certainly :) Could be true. You couldn't disprove it. Of course if it were, the deity would never reveal himself in a vision (thats why there lack of his existence), but it is a possibility, no matter how implausible.

The reason I posted this was not to make fun, but try to give a taste what it feels like when someone implies that you are going to be damned. I can respect Christianity. I cannot respect the belief in eternal damnation. To me, it is an obvious ploy used by the church to entice and retain members. Fear is a very useful tool.

I know Christians who follow me on that point and believe that hell has be a construction over time for that regards. They believe that non-christians either die forever, or are saved anyways by grace. I certainly feel that tone fits the NT better as a whole, even if there are a few scriptures that mention damnation. Certainly matches the life of Christ better.
 
VaultZero4Me said:
I only know of one belief system where the Creator seeks out His creation. All other systems have man trying to seek out and please their god. He came to us! We didn't go to Him.

Besides, I'll take your supposed exceedingly small chance of me being wrong than your consequences if I'm right. Only a "fool" would refuse the hedge. In reality, my faith is beyond any hedging theology or theories, though I do tend to bring up Pascal from time to time. My faith is rooted in real personal relationship between myself and God, instituted by Him and has nothing to do with my imagination or creativity.

Can't explain it in a rational way? Neither can I. ;-)

Ok.

i just met a guy who met a prophet who told him that she had a vision. In this vision, she learned that in reality there is a deity. This deity taught her that he is real, but he does not want to be known. In fact, life is a test. It is testing humanity. The deity wants to find out who can overcome their fears and use pure rational without any faith. Basically, the deity wants to know and find people who are able to be atheists and not believe in the possibility of a deity. In fact, all the religions were created by him to create a challenge.

When you die, your soul gets sent to a holding cell. When he is finished testing humanity, he will separate the souls into 3 categories:

1. People who lived horrible lives (theist and atheists included)
2. Theists
3. Atheists

Group 1 will be sent to an eternal place of torment. More horrible than any place ever imagined in any religion.
Group 2. will be sent to an eternal lake a fire
Group 3 will become deities, live in an unimaginable land full of pleasure, and will go on to create a universe in which to perform the same test.

Now, of course, I believe this is all hogwash because I am an atheist, but looks like Pascals wager looks a little different now ;)

Constructive, no. Fun thought experiment, certainly :) Could be true. You couldn't disprove it. Of course if it were, the deity would never reveal himself in a vision (thats why there lack of his existence), but it is a possibility, no matter how implausible.

The reason I posted this was not to make fun, but try to give a taste what it feels like when someone implies that you are going to be damned. I can respect Christianity. I cannot respect the belief in eternal damnation. To me, it is an obvious ploy used by the church to entice and retain members. Fear is a very useful tool.

I know Christians who follow me on that point and believe that hell has be a construction over time for that regards. They believe that non-christians either die forever, or are saved anyways by grace. I certainly feel that tone fits the NT better as a whole, even if there are a few scriptures that mention damnation. Certainly matches the life of Christ better.

Hi Vault,

I'm not sure if you've read "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis, but I think his views on "eternal damnation" put a new perspective on what it means to be damned. At least, it was a new perspective for me when I first read it, many years ago.

Of course, I've known others completely unmoved by Lewis, too.

God bless!
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top