... it is a very good sales technique.

I hope someday to see religion or politics promote the idea that we are all here to make our fellow residents of the Earth have better lives.

Then many of us wouldn't have to wait to die to be happy.

At a particular stage, people begin to understand the role ethical rules can play in interpersonal and community development and note the continuing failures of other people in this regard.

At the next stage, people begin to hear tu quoque as a legitimate response to noticing the failures of others. This response can provoke a realization that mechanical application of ethical rules is not always appropriate to the aims of the rules -- and that further personal ethical development requires not mere internalization of the rules but rather internalization of the interpersonal and communitarian objectives of the rules

Such internalization, however, is constantly thwarted by personal desires, some of which are instinctual and some the product of habitual behavior. At this point, there arises not only the problem of training personal habits but perhaps even the more intransigent problem of addressing instincts

And then there are a great number of related questions: for example, Is it enough for us to refrain from actively harming others, or should we demand of ourselves that we somehow actively do some positive good? It's easy enough to avoid direct active harm to others; but perhaps we can be content with that only by refusing to examine the effects of failing to engage in the world more positively

The psychological crisis then appears as a number of self-contradictions: consideration of interpersonal and communitarian issues and honest self-examination reveal that we cannot be self-righteous, because we find that the desire to promote interpersonal and communitarian objectives conflicts with our instinctual and habitual desires. Worse yet, the desire to promote interpersonal and communitarian objectives can produce a strong internal reaction on behalf of our own instinctual and habitual desires. A natural self-deceit that results is that we tell ourselves that we are "good" people --- and then remain content with some interpersonal and communitarian "ideals" that we do not try very hard to practice. This, however, is not a genuine solution: it amounts only to a refusal to continue taking the ethical program seriously

But if we find such self-deceit unacceptable, then we must admit that we face a problem, in ourselves, that we cannot solve and that we are not free to ignore. It is like trying to walk lightly on the edge of a sharp sword stretched over an abyss. We could look around for someone else to blame; but it could not actually help us to blame someone else -- and if we look discerningly, what we will see are other people themselves trying to walk lightly on the edges of sharp swords over abysses

of words, with no evidence of an answer buried anywhere in there..

or refraining from"sin". It is about getting forgiveness from an invisible entity.

What does happen when we look into the abyss?

I was raised Catholic, so I was fed that line constantly. I never bought into that original sin bullshit either.

I believed I would get into Heaven as long as I was good. I didn't need to keep score of my sins or Adam's.

That 's how they work. Got to make you feel guilty about something you didn't do, otherwise how would they control people?

Duh!

religious inventions, surely.

We have no need of them, they serve no purpose except to keep people in thrall to religious systems and full of fear.

Unless you have been convinced that you are full of "sin" and have to spend your whole life having to atone for something which you didn't actually do, then the notion of salvation is meaningless.

Last edited Sat Apr 9, 2016, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)

would have liked to see who got bounced for that reply....

If it is for not than so be it.

and that if he/she/they/it do exist, that the "ways" have been communicated to you accurately.

and a matter of choosing what meets a deep-seeded emotional and psychological need.

And of course, while you could have "faith" that jesus will save you from your "sins", you still have to be convinced that you need saving in the first place.

Faith is just a hope.

We have to play a game where the rules made by the creator of the game are not understandable by the players of the game?

your god set it up this way knowingly and on purpose.

"There are rules you neither know nor understand, yet I will send you to hell for eternity if you break them. Oh, and one other thing: I love you."

Human sacrifice is evil and God demanding one and accepting one is evil.

Those trying to profit from that evil are evil. Do just a bit of thinking and you will agree.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?
If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice.

Regards
DL

that their names were removed from the eyes of the Lord.

Funny how some holier than thou believers can't refrain from spewing vile.

One of the oldest cons known.

God does not want competition.

Regards
DL

from a guy, I forget who, who said that as a kid he asked his father what religion was. His father said: "Look son, nobody really knows where we come from or what happens to us after we die. One day, some guy is going to come along and tell you that he knows exactly where we come from and exactly what happens to us. As soon as he tells you that, he's going to ask you for money."

I cannot conceive of a deity that is all powerful, all-knowing, and all-seeing, that could want me to be better, want me to meet some personal definition of morality that it has set, offer redemption, but not share with me the bar it wants me to meet on my own.

It doesn't make any sense.

I'm a pretty moral dude already. I don't even fudge my taxes. But I could be a BETTER person, sure.

A week or so ago, I had a student in my class admitting ignorance about atheism, though he was interested. He's Muslim, on a student visa from Saudi Arabia. He wanted to know more about what atheists think happens when someone dies.

Specifically, he brought up the concern of what happens to someone evil. He noted that Hitler killed six million Jews. In (his version of) Islam, he gets sent to hell. He was disturbed by the idea that if the atheists are right, the same thing happens to Hitler and a good person when they die: they cease to exist. He was disturbed because it was an equal result, not for another reason.

It was pretty interesting. A guarantee of divine justice was indeed a very important part of religion for him.

In terms of the question you're looking at, it was less Salvation that was seen as a need, but the lack thereof.

and their interpretations of divine justice. I do know that in many varieties of Christianity, one's destination after death has little or no relation to the number or severity of the sins one committed while on earth. A person can commit the most heinous crimes and then be forgiven and "saved" and go to heaven. Another person can harm no one, perform many good deeds and improve the lives of other people, and still be consigned to hell. That's hardly what I would call justice.

However, from the philosophical perspective that you and you 5 years ago are not at all the same person, and that who we are is a shapshot of memories and thoughts right now and not a compilation of actions and decisions over time, I see where they're coming from. I don't agree, but a reasonable case can be made.

I don't think repentance is the same in Islam as Christianity, however. Generally considered harder to earn? Not sure.