Jewish, and by the way, modern christian theology is based quite a bit on mistranslated passages and words.

If I'm not mistaken the Abrahamic religions state that children don't go to hell until they're old/mature enough to make the decision for themselves. Maybe someone could clarify this?

Beyond that using Cockney Rhyming Slang in this day and age is truly ginger beer. I'm now going down the apples and pears to use the computer down there so good bye.

I think, if you check your facts, you'll find that you've actually gone down the apples and pears to use the car and scooter.....

In my defense, I honestly didn't know that 'cobblers' was Cockney Rhyming Slang until I looked it up. I thought cobblers was just cobblers....

@Thucydides - I'd suggest you not let "law court theology" be your primary understanding of the Good News and the nature of our relationship with the Triune God. It used to be mine, but I've come to see that it was not Jesus', nor Paul's, nor any other New Testament writer's primary theology.

Rather, I'd suggest you focus on "covenant theology."
Here's where
- grace,
- forgiveness,
- acceptance,
- love,
- faithfulness despite the other's unfaithfulness,
- parent & child relationship imagery,
- bride & bridegroom imagery,
- service,
- respect,
- etc.
ABOUND!

(And don't just settle for Wikipedia's explanation of Covenant Theology.)

Maybe so, and those are good points, but Christ wasn't all hotcakes and lollipops. People who want to be all nice to everyone like to say he had a message of looooove. He did teach us to love our neighbors, and this his followers or at least his true followers, attempt to do with all their strength. But he also spoke of a place of great suffering and "gnashing of teeth," and taught about evil or lazy or selfish people, and what would become of them should they not repent.

Please, to all hostile to Christian "dogma," refrain at least from taking quotes completely out of context.

Let me make this very clear. I, myself, deserve hell. Forever and ever and ever and ever and ever. I deserved a decade ago, I deserve it now, if I live a decade from now I will deserve it then. I am a human, a fallen, wicked human, like everyone else, young, old, great, puny, rich, poor, famous, or obscure. Genghis Khan deserved hell. Hitler deserved hell. Ghandi deserved hell. Mother Theresa deserved hell. That subsistence farmer that lived 1500 years ago deserved hell. George Bush deserves hell, Barack Obama deserves hell, John McCain deserves hell, Billy Graham, Rick Warren, John Paul II, every last ONE of us deserves it. The reason we don't ALL go to hell is because God doesn't want us to, and provides a way out. All you have to do is accept it. It's like you're in a burning room and your trapped, and suddenly there is door to the outside. Those who go to hell are just like those who would look at the door and say, no, I'd rather not give in the to machine of organized religion. Except in the case of the burning room, they'd probably say something like, "I'd rather be like every other brainwashed fool and go outside where it's safe. The outside may not even exist, so why go there? Shoot, I'll take my chances in this room here."

This is what I don't understand. Why not just believe? It may not be true, but if it isn't my fate won't be any worse than an atheists. What are you trying to prove? You may gain a tiny bit of happiness in our lives on earth, atheists, if you were right, but the truth is you won't get to gloat after death if you are proved right. If I am right, I won't gloat, but I'll still be alive in heaven.... the trade then, is a bit of margninal happiness here (which by the way, I can argue. i.e., I'm not convinced an atheists leads a happier life than a Christian or anyone else), or full happiness forever. What is the question here?

'God' has provided just one way to avoid 'Hell', and that way is a belief system I would be deluding myself to pay lip service too? Cobblers!

"But he also spoke of a place of great suffering and "gnashing of teeth," and taught about evil or lazy or selfish people, and what would become of them should they not repent."

Interesting. Where? I'd like to read that. It doesn't sound like the god I spoke too....

Sicarus, you're an idiot.

Jesus was scandalous to the religious leaders in his day, because Jesus hated "religion." He would take the religious arguments of the Pharisees and others and exaggerate their teachings to show how silly and/or self-serving and/or meaningless their teachings & beliefs were.

For example:
The Pharisees hated sinners and threatened them with "hell" in the afterlife (perhaps to try to get them to repent, perhaps because they thought the didn't deserve God's blessings).

Jesus turned this around on them, showing how, if anyone was going to suffer in the afterlife, it was the Pharisees and others who hated sinners, social outcasts, etc.

Do you see the irony! That's one of the main reasons why the religious leaders hated Jesus!

In all of these instances when Jesus talks about hell, his point is never about hell - he's not teaching doctrine, but he's warning those people who thought that they were "good" and "holy-than-thou", to wake up and smell the coffee. To realize that their attitudes were the exact opposite to Jesus' Heavenly Father's loving and forgiving attitude toward sinners.

@Thucydides, I typed this before reading the last three messages

I personally don't agree with the 'just believe because of the possibility of it being true'. It honestly seems relatively ridiculous. I also think that belief out of fear isn't quite the wonderful power of faith talked about within Abrahamic stories from the past 2500 years. Did St. George slay the dragon in fear of his soul? Did St. Sebastian get riddled with arrows before being clubbed to death merely for his own ends? Isn't believing out of fear for one's own soul within itself selfish? Belief in an ultimate power should be entirely voluntary and out of both love and respect, not fear.

Thucydides, your point has been raised before though by multiple scholars. I remember seeing a box divided into four, with each possible outcome shown. You can believe in god and he does exhist and you go to heaven, you can believe in god and he doesn't ehist and nothing happens, you can not believe in god and he does exist and you go to hell, and you can not believe in god and he doesn't exist and nothing happens. The man who created the box concluded that it only made sense to believe in the Christian god.

I should add though that its possible that the true powers are that of Norse mythology and that our corpses are going to be raped by a giant snake because we didn't die with swords in our hands - who's to say that isn't true? Why don't you assume that if you don't die fighting your corpse will lie in a frozen chamber and be gnawed by a giant snake? You can't prove that that isn't true any more than you can prove that you'll go to hell for not believing in the god of the Abrahamic religions.

I'll ultimately go with Richard Dawkins answer though - By default the assumption should be that there is nothing. Unless something truly convinces you otherwise, you should be assume that there is nothing. Unlike Dawkins though, I don't rule out the possibility of some divine being - I assume that there is nothing without proof, but I'm open to seeing that proof.

Ultimately though, your beliefs generally aren't determined by what makes you happiest - they're what makes sense to you. You may feel more comfortable being confident that you will go to heaven after your death for believing in the Judeo-Christian God, but that doesn't make you believe it. Belief comes from putting true thought into it, testing the logic and stretching the possibilities. After that you should come with a true and fair answer - whatever that answer is.

Oh, and @ Churchill, that seems a little unfair - would you care to explain a little more?

The discussion was intentionally provocative but I personally found it very interesting to follow - If that's what you're talking about.

I've finally come to the conclusion that leeches on society are just that: parasitical leeches that need to be removed.

You're right, the Norse gods might be real, but Christianity is the mainstream religion in this society, so it makes the most cultural sense to believe it. Also, I wouldn't say believe out of fear forever, as you gave with the saints examples. No, this is merely a way to bring people into the fold, from whence they make progress and grow as believers. But whatever. I realize now that I've forgotten an important principle I realized about a year ago: defending your faith on the internet is fruitless; all the people who read it are only those who wish to find its faults and pick it apart. So with that, I withdraw.

Aw, don't go.... I want to pick apart the idea that it makes sense to choose Christianity over some other mumbo-jumbo just because everybody else does, and find its faults!

Last week, in my country (Argentina), a theologian priest of Catholic Church was forbidden to teach, edit books and talk to the journalists because he claims that Noah, Adam, Eve, etc are just mythic personages. Two years ago he was warned by Rome because he told that Bible is not a book about history.
It’s remarkable that this happened last week, not last century. Today we know that Adam and Eve are just a tale, but apparently not all of us.
¿Why today nobody believes in Quetzalcoatl or Ra, for example? Because they don’t have an institution supporting them. Once upon a time Zeus was the official God from Spain to Persian, but today is just mythology.
Now you see what’s Catholic Church doing to preserve his believers: IGNORE HISTORY, IGNORE BIOLOGY, IGNORE LOGIC, just have blind faith in our mythology.

It is a pity that the Theologian was forbidden to teach - but was he not teaching it in the name of the Catholic Church? Maybe I'm missing something within the story, but the Catholic Church should have some control over what is said in their name - Whether or not I agree with what they determine or not. If I'm not mistaken the man could choose to teach his ideas under a different banner, it would have less power but am I wrong?

Personally I believe that the Catholic Church over the past 1800 years has slowly corrupted its core values. With rock bottom being the reign of Pope Alexander VI of the Borgias in the early 16th century. The Catholic Church's power over society has been waning ever since, mostly because Lutheranism gave people options from the corrupt system.

Although the 'court' of Pope Benedict is hardly that of the Borgia's Italy it still is behind the times. That I believe is the primary reason that the Catholic Church is shrinking - People are growing more critical of all beliefs and the Catholic Church is not willing to analyze itself.

I'm going to correct myself - membership within the Catholic Church is growing considerably in less economically developed regions like Asia and Africa. Europe and the Americas though are struggling with gaining career priests though - Mostly because I believe people aren't connecting as strongly with the faith in societies developed more fully.

@ thucy
in response to your assertion that everyone shoudl beleive in christianity, just in case it's right.
I cant even begin to express the ridiculousness of this statement.
why not beleive in hinduism, just in case it's right?
yes, as you say christianity is the most prevalent religion, at the least in our country, but a vast majority think it's wrong. so by your logic, you should reject it because thats what most people do.

and thats just silly

churchill, what the fuck man?
my lifestyle has nothing to do with this conversation.

Iteration #2:

"I realize now that I've forgotten an important principle I realized about a year ago: defending your faith on the internet is fruitless; all the people who read it are only those who wish to find its faults and pick it apart. So with that, I withdraw."

im not asking you to defend your faith

im asking you to defend your assertion that others should accept yours

That assertion constitutes my faith. The teaching of Christ constitute my faith, and the "assertion that others should accept" my faith is one of his teachings. Christianity is a universalizing religion.

apparently no one enjoys a good laugh. I have a baptist background, though I greatly disagree with their understanding of the world and of religion. I believe in a higher power, and often this belief becomes strongest when faced with death. I know that may seem weak but i think it is only natural to find comfort in something during those times, and i feel that it is a reaction that all people fear, no matter how anti-religion. I do not, however, feel that this higher power is present in my everyday life, nor that it somehow dictates the events in my world. I believe meaning springs from the self and the value we place on life. I don't know what category you would put those beliefs in, perhaps Deist. It really makes no difference what the label is. It's simply how I feel when faced with the worst.

yeah that sounds very deist

I heard a really good metaphor for the deist god. he's like a clockmaker. he creates everything and makes it work, then walks away

I'm tired of hearing the 'religion caused x amount of deaths over the course of human history' argument.

Do any of us believe that if human beings had not had religion over the past 10k years (a thought experiment that pushes credulity as it is) that things would have turned out hunky-dory?

I sadly admit that I think we'd have killed, tortured and maimed our way through history to an equal extent, religion or no religion.

(Having said that, the Lee Strobel book mentioned above is a *travesty*. If you want to read a one-sided diatribe purporting to be a balanced discussion then this is your book).

I dont really think it's an argument it's a fact. religion has caused ALOT of suffering. whether it would have happened with religion or not is irrelavant, and unprovable. people have theories, and opinions, I certainly have mine. but the fact is that it DID cause x amount of deaths. I dont think this is a very strong argument against religion, but it does prove that some very bad things have been done in it's name.

so your point is.....

religion is both good and bad, just like almost everything
the only question is which is it more of

I still havnt really been answered...

maybe I'm just exceptionally bad at askign questions
what with all the interrogations you think I'd be better

A very good point.

x may be smaller than you would initially think though. Causation is an issue in many cases. Often nationalism is to blame rather than religion (or more to blame, obviously everything is in shades of grey here).

Finally, regardless of what people say their cause is, it is humans who mete out the pain, not the religion.

yes peopel will hurt each other regardless, if it's not religion they will find another cuase to rally behind. but there are a few examples of mass bloodshed that I couldbt imagine happenign without religion.

still I say government causes alot more bloodshed than relgion

Personally, I believe religion has allowed us as a society to push boundaries. We as humans, never would have been able to start the renaissance without the learned priests involved. Religion has given cause for the rulers to dedicate large sums of money to universities, especially important when technology and our current understanding of the world was only beginning to come into existence - just before the age of enlightenment. The Catholic Church also did a lot to slow down the advances as they happened but being that they wouldn't have happened in the first place without the church, that's forgivable.

Religion itself generally isn't the cause of genocide, but it - and the absoloute faith in something you consider out of your understanding is. It allows people to justify things such as genocide. I personally would equate the genocide of both Hitler and Pol Pot to suicidal Jihadists and the mass murders of Pagans by the Teutonic Order in Lithuania. All of which done ultimately out of paranoia, desperation and 'divine guidance' whether that of God, Allah, Marx or Nationalism. All misunderstanding the 'core' of the system.