Melkezadek
Member
But how can they both be correct? If there isn't any standard in which to go by, is truth only relative? Is truth a meaningless word when everything is open to such broad interpretation?
Isn't that I what I said? lol
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How can Christians sleep at night?
- Thread starter Head of Vengarl
- Start date
- Status
But how can they both be correct? If there isn't any standard in which to go by, is truth only relative? Is truth a meaningless word when everything is open to such broad interpretation?
Isn't that I what I said? lol
Holy shit. Donald Trump may be one of the most horribly egregious sinners ever-- but electing Clinton is a national sin.
It all makes sense!
I guess lolBut how can they both be correct? If there isn't any standard in which to go by, is truth only relative? Is truth a meaningless word when everything is open to such broad interpretation?
Isn't that I what I said? lol
More_Badass
Member
I'd argue that like how legal laws haven't always advanced fast enough to keep up with modern technology, beliefs like that are products of their time, and don't apply/shouldn't be considered from our modern worldview and time period.
Digital-Hero
Member
You cant throw out everything. There is much truth in there for example, excavations in Israel found Hekeziah's tunnel and his seal years ago. All mentioned in the ancient texts of scripture.
King Hezekiah Tunnel
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RI3t80ZSg6M
King Hezekiah's Seal
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SW8HM9RQYlI
They also found King David's Seal, Pool of Siloam, Caiphas' House. Also look up the writings of Josephus the historian.
The biggest artifact of them all? The Dead Sea Scrolls which prove the accuracy of King James' text and translation.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mKl7ThT7Agg
More_Badass
Member
By that notion, how can Hinduism also be correct? That religion has its own gods and beliefs and texts. Or other existing faiths? Or how ancient Greeks and Norse believed in their pantheons and sacred text? Religion and belief isn't a singular thing. It's very much a product of the individual and culture and time period and interpretation based on those factors and other variables.
So yes, religious truth is very much relative IMO
Melkezadek
Member
Eh, this is kind of playing with words here. There aren't "multiple truths" as we understand the meaning of truth. Someone who believes that Jesus is Lord is not a truth for them. It is the truth. Someone who believes in the Krishna is not truth for them, it is the truth.
Truth isn't relative. The Earth is round. That is truth. We have flat-earthers who believe otherwise, but I wouldn't call their beliefs "truth".
Religious people are very aware of other religions and beliefs in the world, but I don't think many would regard those as "truth". I'm not sure they would recognize it as "religious" truth. There is a reason they believe in what they do and it's more than where they were born or the culture in which they were raised in.
rokkerkory
Member
The OP's lack of faith is disturbing
SkeptiMism
Member
I think often it's not about whether or it's God's word. Often it's more about what that word really is. Just because it's written there doesn't mean it's meant to be taken literally for example. And even when it's literally, there's still plenty of room to discuss - for example Bible does say you don't get to heaven if you don't follow Jesus, but there are still multiple theologically valid theories about how a person could get to heaven without ever believing or without believing in their life time on Earth.
Another way (just as an example) to look at it would be something like 3 thousands years ago or whatever age the OT is loosely based on, it's not that God was cruel necessarily, but it was God trying to talk in a way that people of a barbaric desert nation understood. That's an extremely introduction to the theory, and as such it may very well sound ridiculous, but there's a lot more to it and it's pretty fascinating to be honest.
It's good to ask who then decides what's God's will and what's not. Indeed, no believer should claim to know it 100% sure (and I'm sad there are so many believers who are so sure).
For the record, I'm an atheist and I do challenge stupid religious ideas when I see them if I have time. But still, there things aren't all that simple. It can be fascinating too.
Yes, that is what a lot of Christians say (not all obviously). But isn't it still so that it was God's will before Christ, and while it's not necessary anymore due to Christ's "sacrifice" (sorry, I can't consider it a sacrifice when God didn't actually give out anything, except his son for an infinitely tiny amount of time - in God's time scale that is), it's still sort of God's will.
Maybe you think differently though? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. That's what I've heard some Christians actually say, and if I understand correctly, that kind of reasoning is behind some Christians not willing to eat pork for example.
The chance for a fucked up afterlife beyond death is equally likely for any believer too. There's a countless amount of possible divinities, and if any of them exist, it's pretty likely that you don't believe in the correct one. If only one real god exists, then she/he/it/whatever might not like that you didn't believe in them but believed in another god. It's even fully possible that there are multiple divinities who all just take whatever souls they want and throw them in hell for fun.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
most of those opinions were cemented prior to the internet, the world was more abstract when you xouldnt directly talk to all the people that are going to hell, you got most of your knowledge from other people in your town.
theres a reason that religious uptake drops off the more civilized the world gets, im pretty sure you can graph quality of life vs religion and.... see trends
theres a reason that religious uptake drops off the more civilized the world gets, im pretty sure you can graph quality of life vs religion and.... see trends
JinjoUnchained
Member
There's a lot of debate on the meaning of given Biblical passages. So I won't say yours is right or wrong. But these passages in context are pretty clearly about Jesus' return and the "end of the world" as we know it. A singular event, not a description of what happens to everyone at all times when they die. Basically the story goes that the Antichrist (which literally means "opposite of Christ") will return as a false profit at a certain time. That's "the Beast" of Revelation. Those who reject him will go to Heaven upon Jesus' return, those who don't will be annihilated as in the verses you cited.
But I don't see anything in the Bible about how if you reject Jesus, then you have to push a boulder up a hill for eternity. That interpretation is more a retrofitting of Hades and Dante's concept of contrapasso into the Biblical texts.
TheOctodad
Member
In this one the parable talks about them being literally able to talk between heaven and hell. This story being a parabolic metaphor here is pretty obvious and most commentators/theologians believe that any literal implications should not be gleaned from this story.
Our english bibles aren't really good at discussing the nuanced views of aionion (eternal in Greek). I'm not going to drag us into that here, but it's definitely up for debate on what these actually should be interpreted as.
Doesn't even say eternal here. No go.
I mean, I understand where people land on being adopters of this view, but it's hardly conclusive. Nor is it even universally adopted historically.
Feel free to listen to N.T. Wright on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vggzqXzEvZ0
Or a myriad of others: Greg Boyd, C.S. Lewis, John Stott, Clark Pinnock, F.F. Bruce, or even early church fathers like Origen who even though that demons and Satan might be saved:
This is why people in 3rd world countries are such stronger Christians than us. They need to rely on God-- we just use him.
Melkezadek
Member
Oh I'm sorry, yea that is what I mean. The Bible doesn't describe hell as a place you go to if you die. At least, that's what Adventists teach.
Never made much sense to me otherwise, either. What's the point of the 2nd coming and judgement day if you were already judged when you die?
TheOctodad
Member
I just want to address this comment real quick. First, I love your thinking, you're really engaging this stuff in a good way. I respect your thoughtfulness a great deal. Second, you really should look into Rene Girard's books on Christ and the Scapegoat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Girard). Rene makes some wonderful points here that Jesus' death was less about a sacrifice to satiate God's wrath, but instead was to serve as essentially a universal scapegoat for humanity and and undo the cycle of violence and blaming. It's fascinating and I'm not doing it justice. But it's a far more thoughtful and nuances approach IMO compared to the classic penal substitutionary atonement perspective.
Just a small quote that kinda sums up that perspective:
Milly Osworth
Member
Religion in general you mean?
And they can sleep at night because they do what the silly books tells them to so they can avoid hell, that's all that matters.
And they can sleep at night because they do what the silly books tells them to so they can avoid hell, that's all that matters.
TheOctodad
Member
Which, in the context of the passage, Jesus refers to as "ghenna" or the valley on Hinnom. He does not say, "hell" like our Bibles make it today.
The valley of Hinnom was a place where child sacrifices used to be made to Molech.
It was a place that they would have understood culturally. A place of (in their minds) permanent weeping and gnashing of teeth and pain.
This place was destroyed and burned up at one point, literally. The valley still stood but the horrible child sacrifices were done away with by the Israelites.
The image Jesus is trying to make here is that the evil will be destroyed and all that's left is the pure. It's the idea of a purifying fire, not a destructive one.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Religion is art.
Digital-Hero
Member
To each his own but that is considered parable to me. Jesus used a name (Lazarus) in the story which calls attention as if he is speaking about an event. He never used names in any other parable. Take it for what you will though. Overall, the text throughout the book appears to be quite clear on eternal suffering in hell for evildoers, even the ones that profess truth without truly believing.
Edit: Also, according to the text Satan and his angels won't be saved. Revelation 20:10 comes through clearly. Also corroborates Matthew 25:41.
The dead rich man in the story that Jesus tells is in that lake of fire and isn't destroyed. He's talking and asks for mercy. (He is of course refused) What's the point of saying something like "Now he is comforted and thou art tormented" if rich greedy men aren't being tormented in the after life?
Still if it is a place for people to get destroyed, that doesn't make the argument of the thread a whole lot different. That's still really awful. People have to be okay and be able to sleep with worshipping someone that is destroying their loved ones and billions of others for not believing in him. I don't see how anyone could be okay with that.
TheOctodad
Member
He uses the name Lazarus because that word means "The One God Helps." He then takes a common character that is seen as "helped by God" (a rich man) and does not name him and juxtaposes him with a poor man, which he names. It's a play on the common assumptions of the day - which is typical for Jesus.
We could list other reasons this story is not as you say, "quite clear." Lazarus is not taken to heaven, but "Abrahams bosom." A place of holding in the Jewish concept of the afterlife. Which is not consistent with the later Christian conceptions of heaven. As I mentioned previously, the fact that they can talk across a chasm is also inconsistent with evangelical ideas of heaven/hell.
In regards to your Revelation passage, again, there is a debate over the literal meaning of the term aionion. Which is what is used in 20:10: translation "καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων." So you're just repeating the same issue here.
And I'm not even arguing that Satan should or would be redeemed, only that the early Christian church seemed to think that it was a possible theological approach. So for you to speak as if the Bible is "clearly" arguing your perspective is just not accurate.
User 479360
Banned
I live in fear of this and the unknown. It's crippling.
HiredN00bs
Banned
This problem described by the OP doesn't go away when you revert to atheism. The people suffering in the world are doing so in what is likely the only existence they will ever experience. There is no empirical evidence of a life after with rewards for helpful deeds or retributive punishment for harmful ones.
This means we are truly at the mercy of the physical world and each other. It gives a sobering clarity to the importance of good will and collaboration once you realize that the world rests on our collective shoulders. We shouldn't shrink from that responsibility, but embrace it.
Because it is difficult or even overwhelming to minimize our harm to others and maximize the benefit we provide in every aspect of our lives over which we have agency does not defeat the moral argument for doing so. When it comes down to it, doing so benefits all of us, even when it takes a higher investment cost for some. If you needed food or shelter, love or meaning, you would give it to yourself in a flash. Therefore, we must charge ourselves to owe it to others. Empathy crossed with social interconnectivity could be humanity's yet greatest asset and the means by which we can take songs like "Imagine" and make them a reality.
This means we are truly at the mercy of the physical world and each other. It gives a sobering clarity to the importance of good will and collaboration once you realize that the world rests on our collective shoulders. We shouldn't shrink from that responsibility, but embrace it.
Because it is difficult or even overwhelming to minimize our harm to others and maximize the benefit we provide in every aspect of our lives over which we have agency does not defeat the moral argument for doing so. When it comes down to it, doing so benefits all of us, even when it takes a higher investment cost for some. If you needed food or shelter, love or meaning, you would give it to yourself in a flash. Therefore, we must charge ourselves to owe it to others. Empathy crossed with social interconnectivity could be humanity's yet greatest asset and the means by which we can take songs like "Imagine" and make them a reality.
crazepharmacist
Member
I had a devout Christian religion teacher tell our class once that she only believes in parts of the bible that she agrees with.
I thought about this sort of thing when I was a kid. It was honestly what started me on the path to becoming an atheist. I started wondering why the rules were so restrictive, and that they were unfair to many people. Why should I follow a God that would not allow all the good people in, but instead only judge those who were fortunate enough to hear the word of God as worthy. That thought was usually countered in church with that being the reason for missionaries, but it didn't sit well with me. Figured if God was as loving as he was stated to be he would surely allow everyone good in. I eventually rationalized that the teachings had to be wrong.
afternoon delight
Member
For a group that claims to know the meaning of life and death there sure is a lot of uncertainty and vague language about any claims made whatsoever.
TheOctodad
Member
Again, see my arguments about this story being a parable. There are a number of passages where Jesus uses similar apocalyptic and destructive language to refer to make a point. You can take this literally if you want, but it's not atypical of rabbis of the time to use extreme language to make a point.
You are essentially asking a question of why ANE cultures communicated as they did. We can discuss that, but it's not just a simple, "If he said it, he meant it." situation.
Additionally, even if it is. The main filter Jesus seems to use for who gets punished and who doesn't is NOT any kind of "faith" that we seem to advocate for here in America. Almost every situation is about the rich and powerful hoarding wealth and the expense of the poor. The rich man and Lazarus, the sheep and the goats, the rich man, the eye of the needle, etc.
So EVEN if there is punishment it's not about if you profess to be a Christian or not, but how well you treat those around you with the resources you have - if we take Jesus literally.
The argument by many theologians and Christians is that the fire is not about "destruction" but about cleansing. It's about the impurities being burned away so that the "good essence" is left remaining.
There's a phrase I believe C.S. Lewis coined, "the gates of hell are locked from the inside." The idea is that anyone, at any point can chose to join in heaven, but they willingly opt out. Most of Jesus parables talk about people who are so hard hearted they want nothing to do with the celebration that invites all the people they don't think deserve to be let it in - so they opt out. Jesus seems to imply that people shut themselves out of the party, not that God tortures them.
My point is there is a huge number (though perhaps not the Evangelical majority) that DO NOT believe that the Christian God will send billions to hell for not believing in him. It's tough to explain because so many people that have a beef with Christians haven't been given the best theological foundation to be able to recognize that the arguments made are not just people trying to make it palatable, but actually have a case based on hermeneutics, historical understanding, metanarrative arcs, and historical perspectives.
I don't blame you for not wanting to do the work for something you don't believe in, that's fine. But trust me, I am a Christian and I do not espouse the perspective you claim we have, nor do thousands of others I've met with.
I can make a lengthy case for this, but don't have the time to summarize a number of books.
If you want a primer you can feel free to start here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004IWR3CE/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Where do they claim to know the meaning of life and death? Christianity only claims that Christ defeated death, not that they understand every nuance to the cycles of life and death.
Even Dante, who we probably got more ideas of hell from than the actual Bible had some pretty open ended views on judgment:
Or the Christian darling C.S. Lewis:
Polioliolio
Member
Was thinking about this at work.
Concerning the rebuttal about hell being about the same worry as the worry about people who are starving or suffering now somewhere in the world, I just want to add that HELL is eternal. Pain beyond understanding, and not for a single torture session, not for a week, not for a year, or 20, or 80, or 500, or 500,000, or 500,000,000 or 500,000,000,000,000,000, but forever and ever endlessly.
Edit: forget the idea about innocent people going to suffer in hell for that long, since that's up for debate apparently. What about people who deserve it, from a Christian point of view. If hell is that kind of torture, who can possibly deserve that kind of eternity?
Concerning the rebuttal about hell being about the same worry as the worry about people who are starving or suffering now somewhere in the world, I just want to add that HELL is eternal. Pain beyond understanding, and not for a single torture session, not for a week, not for a year, or 20, or 80, or 500, or 500,000, or 500,000,000 or 500,000,000,000,000,000, but forever and ever endlessly.
Edit: forget the idea about innocent people going to suffer in hell for that long, since that's up for debate apparently. What about people who deserve it, from a Christian point of view. If hell is that kind of torture, who can possibly deserve that kind of eternity?
afternoon delight
Member
LOL you are dodgy, I'll give you that. If the Bible and its adherents are not instructing us on how to live and die in God's good graces, what are they talking about? They're offering their version of what it means to be alive- a servant of God.
Well, come on guys. Theology 101.
God made us as "eternal souls." We're impossible to kill permanently, even by God himself.
It's not his fault if we don't want to live in his ever satisfying-yet-unchanging presence, with the one alternative being described as an inescapable "lake of fire."
We weren't made to be in that inescapable lake of fire. Just persist eternally without being able to willfully end our own consciousnesses. Big difference!
Would you rather enter The Jaunt whilst being poked with hot things by horrors you can't talk to, or hang out with a big old three-in-one omnipresent entity with no physical form and all the people who disagree with gay lifestyles?
Seems pretty fair to me.
God made us as "eternal souls." We're impossible to kill permanently, even by God himself.
It's not his fault if we don't want to live in his ever satisfying-yet-unchanging presence, with the one alternative being described as an inescapable "lake of fire."
We weren't made to be in that inescapable lake of fire. Just persist eternally without being able to willfully end our own consciousnesses. Big difference!
Would you rather enter The Jaunt whilst being poked with hot things by horrors you can't talk to, or hang out with a big old three-in-one omnipresent entity with no physical form and all the people who disagree with gay lifestyles?
Seems pretty fair to me.
TheOctodad
Member
Eh. I don't think I'm dodgy. I'm very specific about syntax
How to live and how to die, yes.
But to understand the MEANING of life and death - hardly.
I understand how to use my computer.
I do not, for the life of me, understand how all of it works.
Can I please save this for future use? This is one of my favorite summaries and made me laugh out loud.
CadetMahoney
Member
Why do creationists, young earth believers etc. seem to only be a thing in America?
The simplest answer is that religion is not real and that they're arguing over nonsense. Christians seem to tolerate other Christians with different views though. Like they're not going to kill each other over differences like back in the day. An American Evangelical isn't going to physically attack a Protestant Church of England follower because they don't seek to criminalize abortion.
If we'd define Christianity as "beliefs held by all Christians," I think you end up with this as the totality of Christianity:
1. There is a God;
2. A guy named Jesus is important.
Beyond those two statements, I don't believe there is a single assertion that all Christians agree on.
Of course, for any given Christian, there are often a few assertions that s/he thinks Christians need to agree on, leading to a situation where Christians are constantly accusing one another of being non-Christians.
One such assertion is that God looks upon abortion with disfavor, and that any research that is based on stem cells or IVF treatment reminds God just enough of abortion that He looks on that with disfavor too. Not all self-identified Christians believe that, no, but is there a distinction between self-identified Christians and "real" Christians? Many if not most Christians seem to think so.
I'm kind of glad we Atheists don't run into this kind of problem. None of this "What? You don't believe in string theory!? Then you're not an Atheist at all!"
/laugh.gif and *tips Fedora*.
The simplest answer is that religion is not real and that they're arguing over nonsense. Christians seem to tolerate other Christians with different views though. Like they're not going to kill each other over differences like back in the day. An American Evangelical isn't going to physically attack a Protestant Church of England follower because they don't seek to criminalize abortion.
If we'd define Christianity as "beliefs held by all Christians," I think you end up with this as the totality of Christianity:
1. There is a God;
2. A guy named Jesus is important.
Beyond those two statements, I don't believe there is a single assertion that all Christians agree on.
Of course, for any given Christian, there are often a few assertions that s/he thinks Christians need to agree on, leading to a situation where Christians are constantly accusing one another of being non-Christians.
One such assertion is that God looks upon abortion with disfavor, and that any research that is based on stem cells or IVF treatment reminds God just enough of abortion that He looks on that with disfavor too. Not all self-identified Christians believe that, no, but is there a distinction between self-identified Christians and "real" Christians? Many if not most Christians seem to think so.
I'm kind of glad we Atheists don't run into this kind of problem. None of this "What? You don't believe in string theory!? Then you're not an Atheist at all!"
/laugh.gif and *tips Fedora*.
xZoneHunter
Member
The whole setup of a "hell and heaven" is flawed to begin with. Not sure how people can still believe in a book that has been written (and re-written) decades ago. I guess it's all in the traditions, parenting and education.
But hey, different strokes for different folks.
But hey, different strokes for different folks.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
Either they deserve it or the Lord has a plan for them. Or maybe both. i'unno, I'm getting mines so whatever
TheOctodad
Member
Here's my deal:
Jesus is central to Christianity.
Jesus said the greatest two commandments were "Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself."
So do those two things and everything else is debatable.
The end.
Melkezadek
Member
Digital-Hero
Member
Sorry I don't agree with your some hermeneutics and that's fine.
Thanks for your response, parts were insightful.Prototype Viktor
Member
OP you should really worry about why do they bother even keeping themselves alive outside of eating and sleeping if the next step is infinitely longer and better supposedly
afternoon delight
Member
I almost used the word slippery but felt that has a meaner intent, I do not think ill of you personally Octodad. This difference between the how and the why, and the mentality behind it goes into some really lengthy philosophical shit about existence that has played out for aeons and will continue to do soEh. I don't think I'm dodgy. I'm very specific about syntax
How to live and how to die, yes.
But to understand the MEANING of life and death - hardly.
I understand how to use my computer.
I do not, for the life of me, understand how all of it works.
until we eradicate this judeo christian nonsense from the universe like the plague it is along with the other judgemental pricks that won't be named in a spoiler tag this long
Christians sleep like the rest of us- after masturbating and dooming lots of unwanted potential children to wadded up tissue.
Pantaghana
Member
Jews as well I think, both Islam and Judaism consider Jesus a very important prophet, but deny that he is divine.
Mr Waluigi
Banned
double post
Mr Waluigi
Banned
That whole "suicide is a sin" business or something like that
Can't really help other people & spread the gospel if you let yourself die either
Jesus is not a prophet in Judaism. He is irrelevant.
Cindi Mayweather
Member
One of the core reasons I decided Christianity wasn't for me. Something I asked as a teenager.
Hopefully.
You know, if this religion thing actually worked independently of human progress, you'd think we would've all stopped fighting and namecalling and being terrified and just got together to express nuanced philosophical ideas, respect each other, and worship the higher power we all believed existed a long time ago.
TheOctodad
Member
Sorry I don't agree with your some hermeneutics and that's fine.
That's totally fine! We don't have to agree. As long as maybe we can agree that's it not "quite clear" of one interpretation I think that's helpful for discourse!
I like you.
I run in enough academic circles that I don't think you'll offend me for challenging me or calling me out on bullshit. I try to hold everything pretty loosely. I've grown and changed my perspective on a lot and I hope I continue to. Being cemented in certain ideas and not being open is intellectual death to me - so I appreciate your comments and thoughts.
I hope my responses never come across as not respecting yours. I'm saddened a bit that (and forgive me if I'm misreading you) you think that all judeo Christian perspectives are essentially a cancer on our world. I don't agree that Jesus or his perspectives were at all unhealthy. In fact, I think we still could learn from him and I think he was pushing human consciousness forward significantly in His time.
I think we can agree that what religion has generally done with Jesus is abhorrent and unfortunate. I do think Christianity would be much healthier in the minority. People in power tend to use it to oppress and coerce others and their ways of thinking and that runs in opposition to the fundamental concepts of Christianity I believe.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I'll try to be less slippery.
Za-Neen-Jya
Member
That's what I never got about Pascal's wager. That's the old saying that you may as well believe in the Christian God because, who knows? It may be true. If it's true you go to heaven and if it's not true it doesn't matter anyway as you're rotting in the ground.
The problem with that is, what if you worship the wrong god and go to hell even though you spent your whole life being faithful? Talk about a waste of life. I'd rather not believe in anything and at least have fun while I'm alive on earth.
The problem with that is, what if you worship the wrong god and go to hell even though you spent your whole life being faithful? Talk about a waste of life. I'd rather not believe in anything and at least have fun while I'm alive on earth.
Monocle
Member
Taking a provisional position, subject to change, and based on evidence and reason, is not faith. You aren't blindly trusting in anything, you're making an informed judgment based on the best info available.
That stupid fallacy is very common and very annoying. It's one of those obviously wrong, long refuted but endlessly repeated tactics that barely dignifies a response. I mean, just so you know.
I had a professor who used to say this a lot, and believe me, I had more than my fill after day one, never mind the whole quarter.
- Status