HOME | DD
i-stamp β Not the Only Fish in the Sea
Published: 2012-11-27 00:01:49 +0000 UTC; Views: 2046; Favourites: 42; Downloads: 2
Redirect to original
Description
Lately this word, 'anti-theist' seems to be getting some steam. I'm seeing a lot of atheists with negative things to say towards Christianity be called 'anti-theist.'Let's get something straight, Christianity is not the only theistic religion or theistic belief out there. And while many of us have a problem with the views outlined in the bible, far less of us have problems with many other theistic religions or theistic beliefs like theistic Buddhism, Hinduism, Deism and so on, apart from just not believing in it.
And something else, while I'm not one to think human nature would let the world be a better place for not having the bible around, Christianity DOES think the the world (or heaven, depending on the faith) would be a better place with no beliefs other than Christianity. So does that mean Christians are anti-everything-except-Christianity? Food for thought.
Related content
Comments: 147
Finally, someone gets it! I myself am not Christian and I don't agree with the religion (but if someone practices it, I respect that), but I'm not anti-theist. I actually am a theist myself (I'm Jewish)
π: 1 β©: 0
Huh, good points, especially that last one. Β I've seen that a lot here. Β Religion isn't one size fits all.
π: 0 β©: 0
We don't hate all those not affiliated with our religion.
π: 0 β©: 1
Like I said to someone else,Β I'm not going to keep people around who think it would be penultimate cosmic justice if I and my other non-religious or alternatively religious friends are tortured for eternity. That is hateful, whether or not they try and sugar-coat it.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
We don't believe non-Christians go to Hell simply for being non-Christian.
π: 1 β©: 1
That sentiment is not biblically supported. Good works alone are not enough. You must accept the Jesus and his word as true and necessary for salvation. And I do not.Β
π: 0 β©: 2
You must accept Christ's message-which is basically be a good, charitable person-to enter Heaven.
π: 0 β©: 1
Christ also said that the first commandment was to love God, then love your neighbor. He gave no indication that just being a good person was enough to save you.Β Galatians 2:16 pretty explicitly says otherwise.Β Revelation 21:8 includes unbelievers in the list of evil people who will perish.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Back to topic of the stamp that started this, how does that equal bigotry?
π: 0 β©: 1
Other than the the bible and Christians thinking non-Christians deserve eternal punishment, often in the form of eternal torment, for simply not believing the same things they do? That's pretty bigoted in of itself. Even without going into all the other things the bible condemns out of hand (re: homosexuality et all.)
π: 0 β©: 1
We accept that God punishes those who reject Him. We aren't all the WBC, running after Gays with picket signs.
π: 0 β©: 1
And I never said you were. But that doesn't change what I said previously either. "I'm not going to keep people around who think it would be penultimate cosmic justice if I and my other non-religious or alternatively religious friends are tortured for eternity, whether or not they would do anything to me physically." Believing in the bible means believing that the world would be a better place if people who refused to be a part of your religion were gone from it. And that, to me, is a poisonous arrogance. Even if you never breathe a word of it to anyone else.
π: 0 β©: 1
Once again, most of us don't believe that.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't believe that's true. I can't speak for non-denominationals but most Christian denominations think that those not part of their denomination will not be saved.Β
Plus, I think the bible concurs with that view. I just think the bible is a shitty book.
π: 0 β©: 1
The Papacy's official position that a member of any faith or even one who is of no religious inclination can be saved if they lead good lives and do good deeds.
And on that second note, go fornicate yourself with something rusty.
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually,Β
"The Pope wrote: "The question for those who do not believe in God is to follow their own conscience. Sin, even for a non-believer, is when one goes against one's conscience.
"To listen and to follow your conscience means that you understand the difference between good and evil."
He said that the "mercy of God has no limits" and encompassed even non-believers, but his remarks failed to impress the Italian Union of Atheists and Agnostics.
"Why should a non-believer seek legitimisation from the Pope?" the association asked.
It dismissed what it called the pontiff's "nice words" and said: "What interests non-believers is certainly not 'forgiveness' from an entity whose existence we do not trust."
The Pope's reaching out to atheists echoes a homily he delivered in May, when he said that even atheists could be welcomed into heaven. That declaration caused consternation among Vatican officials, with a spokesman later appearing to backtrack on the Pope's remarks, saying that people who do not believe in God "cannot be saved"."www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world⦠(bold emphasis mine)
Yeah, you're one of the 'good ones.'
I'm not sorry if you choose to take offense from that. I think the bible has more bullshit than truth, ethics, or even applicability. This should come as no surprise, I wouldn't call myself anti-Christianity if I didn't.
Edit: Also, earlier you said that you accept God punishes those who reject him. So which is it? Can an agnostic+/atheist be saved by works alone (which is contrary to several scriptures), or are they doomed the moment they decide to not call themselves Christians?
π: 0 β©: 1
It's in the Catechism so it's the accepted policy of the Church.
π: 0 β©: 1
Have you read it?
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (There is no salvation outside the church)
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." -CCC 846
π: 0 β©: 1
The Second Vatican Council and the Catechism which was made to respect the changes of Church Law state non-believers may enter Heaven if they're good enough.
π: 0 β©: 1
Got a quote for me? Genuinely curious.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
...the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as 'the pillar and mainstay of the truth.' This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world,subsists in Β the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements ofΒ sanctificationΒ and of truth are found outside of it's visible confines." (Lumen Gentium, 8-9)
π: 0 β©: 1
I notice it said some sanctification and truth, not salvation. That's basically like saying 'you might get some right, but you still fail where it counts.'
π: 0 β©: 1
You look for reasons to hate us, don't you?
π: 0 β©: 1
Like the tag line hate the sin not the sinner, I don't hate you. I hate Christianity and what it's done in our history.Β
In any case, from my perspective you're looking for a reason to give the bible and Catholicism more leniency than written.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
What do you mean "more leniency than written"?
π: 0 β©: 1
Exactly what I wrote. The bible is not conducive to civilized life. Christians have to cherry-pick the good parts to even somewhat shoehorn it into modern living. But there's blood on the pages and a lot of undercurrents of violence. Most Christians believe a cleansing of the Earth is not too far off. Bowls of wrath. Weeping and gnashing of teeth and all that.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
You are aware that we don't take all the Bible literally, right?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, but I think most Christians 'don't take literally' the parts they don't like rather than basing that conclusion on the presence of allegory.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Speaking plain English. :/
π: 0 β©: 1
Don't blame a lack of vocabulary on me.
π: 0 β©: 1
I have a rather large vocabulary, but only so big. Now say what you meant.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't even know what words you were having trouble with and why you haven't just expanded that vocabulary a little further via google.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
What I meant by what? Which word or phrase did you not understand?
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, but I think most Christians 'don't take literally' the parts they don't like rather than basing that conclusion on the presence of allegory. What does that mean?
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay. A lot of bible language is allegorical and metaphorical, like the psalms or revelations or Jesus' parables. There are some things all Christians (or at least close to all) think is not allegorical, like the divinity of Jesus or the story of Moses. There are some things Christians are divided on, like the literalness of the flood or the genesis story.Β
What I am proposing is that many Christians call many things in the bible not literal because it's easier to do than trying to explain an absurd story, even if it was written to be taken literally. (Ie global flood. It makes no sense but that's how it's written.)
π: 0 β©: 1
There is actually a fair amount of evidence that there may have been a major flood in the Near East-Mediterranean area.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
The bible doesn't describe a regional flood, it describes what would be a global catastrophe. It even says the water would cover the Ararat mountains (where Noah supposedly set down) with many cubits to spare. Those mountains are way too high for anything short of a global flood to cover. If they weren't covered, Noah could have easily seen their peaks, and the birds he released to find land could have easily reached and roosted there.Β
Furthermore if this was just a regional flood (which there have been others and bigger than any Mesopotamian flood) would make God a liar, as he said he would no longer cleanse the world in such a way, even made the first rainbow as a promise (however that works).
All this points to the flood of the bible being what it claims. Wiping out all of creation save the boat's occupants.Β
It it just also happens to be wrong. But it's much easier to write off without explanation if you call it an allegory. And that let's the bible save face instead of being called out on its ridiculousness. So an increasing number of Christians do just that.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Did the Jews who wrote it at the time know how large the world was? No. The Near East was their world.
Once again, I don't believe in the Flood.
π: 0 β©: 1
It doesn't matter how big the Israelites thoughtΒ the world was.Β
"[The bible] says the water would cover the Ararat mountains (where Noah supposedly set down) with many cubits to spare. Those mountains are way too high for anything short of a global flood to cover. If they weren't covered, Noah could have easily seen their peaks, and the birds he released to find land could have easily reached and roosted there.Β "
I don't believe the flood either. But the flood story was written to be believed, just like Jesus' resurrection. It's just wrong.
π: 0 β©: 1
It was first written down centuries or even millennia after the event that inspired it occurred. Of course it was embellished.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Sure, just like the story of Gilgamesh was 'embellished.' Rather, it was a work of fiction based on the fact that flood exist along rivers. But made a nonsensical epic heroes journey which there's no evidence of happening. The difference is we know Gilgamesh is a folk story, but people want to believe the bible is true and has truth value where it does not. The story was written to be taken seriously and as true. But in order to swallow it, people write it off as allegory, exaggeration, or not important. Despite that it, like so much of the bible, only serves to demonstrate the bible came about as a result of simple men with simple outlooks on the world trying to unify people under a religion. Not as a result of an omnipotent, omnipresent being making an inerrant and holy text.
π: 0 β©: 1
I reiterate, most of us don't believe it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually most do. Especially here in the US, where around 60% of Christians polled believe in the global flood as a literal event.Β www.washingtontimes.com/news/2β¦
But my point isn't whether most do or don't. None should believe it. But they shouldn't believe the rest of the bible is any more trustworthy than the flood.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Β it, like so much of the bible, only serves to demonstrate the bible came about as a result of simple men with simple outlooks on the world trying to unify people under a religion. Not as a result of an omnipotent, omnipresent being making an inerrant and holy text."
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>